starting to feel like a lot of the inflammatory leftist activists who do insane shit for attention are right-wing psyops lol i cant fucking take this shit anymore

Every dollar spent on Ukraine is worth a kilogram of gold

And shame on you short sighted fools for thinking this absolute golden opportunity to grab the Putin regime by the neck and stomp its trigger fingers into putty should slip through our fingers. Shame and disgust.

We KNOW why the far-left are supporting Russia. They always have. These ones genuinely think they're smart, as tankies always do, by pretending to give a shit about, "Nazis" in Ukraine, claiming Ukraine is a, "right wing ethnostate." And stanning for Putin's Russia when they do it, as they inevitably will do for anything Russian. These ones pretend they don't exist the majority of the time and pretend to just be your average liberal. One of the reasons liberalism has such a shitty name in the US, because rather than stand on their own god damned feet, they gladly hold a torch and a rainbow flag to hide the hammers, sickles and roses. These ones oppose helping Ukraine because they want Russia to retake it, and then, like Hitler after getting his first taste of victory, move on to the next countries neighboring it.

But it's the unexpected dark horse of republican/right wing sympathizers that has me most annoyed. But, then again, it's not surprising. Just pitiable.

The religious conservatives (I'm not describing conservatism, I'm describing a specific kind of conservative) have taken an absolute beating, both because they can't be anywhere near as subtle or hidden about the worst desires of the worst of their party. It doesn't matter whether the issue is gay marriage, trans rights or workers rights. They want the answer to be "-because JESUS," and as a secular country, the answer cannot be, "-because JESUS." And they do not accept that. They cannot effectively obfuscate this by pretending to give a damn about gay rights or trans rights, the way far-leftists manage to do so by appropriating those topics and non-negotiably packaging them into their specific ideology. They have to clumsily, clunkily add their world view and then insist that world view be adopted as paramount for solving the problem. And they can't dress it up as anything but what it is. Voluntary addition of their religious culture to an, as stated before, secular society. There's no going back on this.

And removing the religious element of their ideology, they're left trying to find answers on why traditionalism as they define it is to be the modus operandi of US society. IE, no gay marriage, no transgendered rights. And they can't conceive of a good, packagable argument that doesn't just boil down to, "because Jesus and the Bible." This isn't to say that there aren't potential good arguments, just that they can't provide or think of any.

So the far-leftists face an ideological majority opponent that cannot reasonably present arguments or reasons to be on their sides, and creates many reasons to not be. They refuse to bend on some of these issues to appease their biggest voter bases and most stringent supporters.

This is bad, because there are genuinely some terrible far-left positions. The use of class struggle theory for anything, for instance. The dance being had between unions and conspirators to use regulatory bodies to make it impossible to have business without unions. The consolidation of conspirators to try and push values that say "personal profit and ownership of free enterprise is wholly bad and shouldn't exist."

So the republicans are desperate. Nobody wants their fiscal policies, ones bore of desperate alliance with the wealthy that, rightly or wrongly, don't want socialism to stamp them and opportunity to privately own a business out. That compromise to appeal to plutocrats and oligopolies. And nobody wants, "because Jesus and The Pope/The Church says so," to be the final answer on moral or economic issues.

So what do they do. They deliriously look for potential allies. Anyone, any safe haven, that might be receptive to their ideals. Nationalism, religious identity, freedom of enterprise. And maybe a little ethnosupremacism.

Because of the disgusting, underhanded ways the far-left have conducted themselves and their end goals over the last 30 years, the republicans in their desperation look at Russia, hold their nose, smile and go, "Yeah, he's fighting the Culture War against Globo Homo. He's our guy. Just a mom&pop, bible observing, by-your-bootstraps man of family and country. Not somebody that bows to the anti-white, offended-so-you-get-legally-in-trouble politically correct, alphabet soup gay crowd." Where just 35 years ago, the Reaganites would've leapt backwards into gay bars covered in mojito flavored stickers rather than look to RUSSIA as a bastion of conservative values.

Because of this misplaced trust and hope for a place, "free of 'globo homo,'" (their beliefs, not mine) this desperation, certain republicans specifically are wary of supporting Ukraine. Because of the relentless advancement and frankly underhanded way this social value war has been conducted via guerilla cultural warfare, and the republicans impotent, ineffectual response to it, they see their preferred way of doing things going. And they hate it. It's because of this contempt that they suggest maybe Russia should just own Ukraine and we should stay out of it.

I vehemently disagree. Russia is nothing but a gigantic pain in everybody's ass, globally. Russia's involvement in the politics and governance of other countries, their deliberate acts of sabotage, mafioso behavior and assassinations, bribery and exploitation need to stop. The nation of Russia is a pathetic one currently, held in place only by the mafioso families that use regular Russians as free range labor and the legal and civic systems as rubber stamps for shadow feudalism. It doesn't even try to provide for its citizens, DESPITE the public government's best efforts, and actively prevents distributing services across the country in order to prevent mutinies against their masters in Moscow. It's a safe haven for the worst would-be crime dynasties, their greed and exploitation of the Russian people limited only by their incompetence and a lack of desire on behalf of anybody else to help them live up to the most of their potential as crime families.

And why? Why do we put up with their bullshit? Because of the potential of them either using a nuke, or covertly sneaking nukes to other belligerent nations to use as a proxy in their stead, scapegoating the blame. Because these spoiled giant god damned babies can make a massive mess, and are inclined to do so if they don't get their way. Because the mafioso leading the Russian nation around like zombifying fungal parasites could direct two million men to go flatten smaller European nations and gobble them up in lightning ethnic cleansing. Because they coudl unmothball ten thousand shitboxes from warehouses East of the Ural Mountains and turn Lichtenstein and Estonia into parking lots. Because they have their fingers in many pies, worldwide, and can toss dirt into the gears of many other nations' machinery, causing chaos, destruction and despair, and have the means to do it if anyone moves to act against them.

And then here we are, presented with an entirely legal and good faith opportunity to help a smaller nation bring that sloppy ghoul of a country to its knees and turn the country against its sagging, aging autocrat dictator, just by having it bare fisted brawl with a wood chipper we could handily donate to Ukraine...

And these FUCKING cowards are too grumpy over losing on the topic of gay marriage and transgenderism to help an aggressed upon country secure their own borders and national identity.... from Russia.

Do you know what donation of even one year's defense budget here in the US would do for Ukraine? Do you know what it would do to fuck over the nation of Putin's Russia, long term? Putin has effectively given the world every reason to lock it out of the global economy so it can't do business or make money, and is effectively wasting every potential it could ever muster to land conflict by having it march into armor-destroying Western European and American engineered death.

And why? Because it has a bizarre and silly ideology that Russians are all Slavs and all Slavs are just Russians with funny aspirations of independence. That Russia is one of The Great Civilizations of Earth and is thus destined to hold other people in its orbit- at least until it ethnically cleanses them and absorbs them into itself. One that the romantic idiots in charge are willing to sacrifice millions of Russians like lemmings in a game to secure the idea of.

Decimation of Russia's military would mean over thirty to forty YEARS of peace as they're forced to actually pull their head out of their ass and fix their economy and society, in order to even theoretically get back into the game. It would mean there would be not even a strategic feasibility of undertaking dangerous and fruitless missions to bully neighbors and annex land from them just because they're in their, "spheres of influence." It would mean peace, as Russia would be incapable of doing aything but threaten people with nukes for the slightest thing, not having any ability to operate outside its borders beyond a fleet of Toyotas with missile pods on them.

Fuck you cowards, both left and right, that see your Daddy Putin as some sort of figure that'll help you win your culture war, whatever your views on it. He is not Your Guy. He's a predatory mimic not out for either of your ambitions, he's out for his own, and he and all his buddies in his Russo-Feudalist oligarchic society would sell your entire family into sex slavery in Lybia for 40 rubles and a vodka. If we funneled the entire year's defense budget worth of American goods THAT WE'D OTHERWISE HAVE TO PAY A FORTUNE TO DISMANTLE ANYWAY, AT THEIR END OF LIFESPAN, it would generate us objective peace of mind. The way taking Little Jimmy's entire jackknife and gun collection would give us peace of mind, as we now no longer have to worry about shots being randomly fired in the night by a psychotic and unsupervised 6 year old.

And that's why spending an American dollar on Ukraine today, is worth roughly $26,000 in gold.

my personal characterization of eren bc i’ve been thinking about him a lot🥰 this is all modern!au bc canon literally never happened.

these aren’t x reader headcanons but i have more than enough thoughts about eren in a relationship to provide those soon!

General

Loud, brash, and loyal to a fault - you either love him or hate him (or if you’re Jean, you both love and hate him)

Those that he allows into his inner circle are friends for life. He’s easy to piss off but he’s quick to forgive when it comes to friends and family. If that doesn’t apply to you, or you cross those closest to him, he’ll hold a grudge long after the issue is resolved. You’re on his shit list for life.

He wears his heart on his sleeve. It’s literally impossible for him to conceal his emotions. If he’s angry, sad, annoyed, happy, literally anything his feeling you will be sure to know.

The same goes for his opinions. Blunt beyond belief. If he thinks something is stupid he won’t hesitate to say so. He’ll backtrack to soften his delivery if he notices that it offends other parties though.

All of these factors can lead to awkward moments. 99% of the time he’s confident enough in his stance to ignore how others might receive him but the other 1% of the time you might catch the rare sight of his cheeks heating up.

Contrary to popular belief, Eren is actually smart. Not to the same caliber of Armin, Erwin or Hange when it comes to critical thinking and analysis, but it is still above average. That being said, he doesn’t necessarily apply himself to subjects that don’t immediately interest him. However, he has impeccable game sense, making him quite the accomplished athlete.

Anger issues. Clearly. It made him a difficult child... for most of his life (and probably the reason he’s an only child) but as he’s gotten older he’s learned to manage his temper. It’s still easy to rile him up though, and it’ll be a cold day in hell before he backs down from a challenge. But for the most part his attitude is a running joke between those he’s closest with.

He has a strong moral compass and sense of justice. Not in the sense that he’s conservative, far from it. His personal ideology is: as long as it’s not hurting anyone people should do what they want. and anyone that messes with that is wrong. He’s a simple guy

Bad at flirting. He can be super oblivious and when he does catch on, he’s not smooth at all. But he’s tall and pretty so it comes off as endearing 99% of the time. It’s his boy-ish charms that save him every time.

Childhood

Cute as a button as a baby. Poor Carla and Grisha were blindsided when he hit his terrible twos.

Had no friends besides Armin until middle school when his parents adopted Mikasa.

Before Mikasa, he and Armin were the black sheep of the neighborhood kids. Eren easily alienated himself from the neighborhood kids and his schoolmates due to his brash nature. Looking back on it, he still stands with his decision since it meant he found his first friend.

(Armin didn’t fit in for his old soul thanks to being raised by his grandparents)

Super curious and didn’t realize how small he was in such a big world. On several occasions he wandered off because of his curious nature. Would have been a leash kid if leash kids were a thing when he was growing up.

Could technically be considered a school bully for talking down to kids on the playground. HOWEVER, he was smaller than other kids for a while, meaning his haughty attitude resulted in petty school yard fights that he lost most of the time. Still, he never cried and never learned his lesson.

Since we was never against a fight, he made it his mission to take up for Armin. When Mikasa joined his family he did the same for her when their peers made comments about her different looks. As we know, those roles soon reversed with Mikasa taking on a protector roll

To try and find a suitable outlet for his excess...energy...Carla and Grisha signed him up for every sport under the sun. Was pretty good too but excelled at football and track and field.

Teen

Was on a first name basis with administration during his school years for getting too invested in classroom debates. His fired up nature easily boiled over outside the classroom resulting in several fist fights

Got suspended once for said fights, but more often than not Mikasa saved him before he could get into more trouble.

So angsty. Literally a textbook case of teen angst from the loud music, dark clothes, to butting his heads with his parents he was truly a nightmare. (He recognizes this and is forever apologetic to his parents for being so difficult during this time)

Started to grow out of his rebellious phase by his junior year. There was no real explanation for it he just...did. That’s not to say that he was any less combative, he just knew what battles to pick. Good job Eren.

By the time he graduates he’s such a mama’s boy. He’s always loved him mom but now his eyes have been opened to how much of a handful he was growing up. He’s embarrassed anytime she brings up old stories but he knows it’s all in good fun.

He’s also had a major growth spurt by the time he graduates and his years of playing sports have definitely paid off. He’s a total heartthrob by his senior year and unintentionally a heartbreaker. Again, it’s hard to break into his circle, nothing personal.

Young Adult (College/Post Grad)

Commits to playing football exclusively. Not out of hopes of going pro but he just really likes the sport. He’s well known around campus between sports and his personality.

Still, he can be found with any one member of his crew at any given time. It’s rare to find him by himself unless he’s in his dorm room. He’s a total extrovert and gets bored easily when left to his own devices.

BUT he’s not a total party animal. Definitely prefers kickbacks to partying. But he will show his face if someone personally asks him to come.

Smokes and drinks the normal amount. Knows his limits and isn’t a lightweight for either. But under the right conditions (i.e. drinking games, bets, etc.) he’ll over indulge. Far too touchy when he’s under the influence.

Struggled to find his “calling” in school. Most of his friends fell into majors that they clicked with but it wasn’t that easy for him. He probably ends up with a fifth year under his belt. since he didn’t officially declare a major until maybe junior year.

Graduates with a political science degree! 1) He fooled his parents into thinking he’d go to law school which satisfied his doctor dad. 2) While he doesn’t exactly know how, he wants to improve daily life for the less fortunate and he thought this was a good step to do that. 3) He loved being able to argue for a grade during in-class debates

I know we all love streamer!Eren but I really do think he’d end up going down a creative/independent route where he’s not tied to a desk 9-to-5. It really stressed him out to think about doing thing for 50 years and then being able to enjoy life after retirement.

Other

Like previously mentioned, his music tastes were pretty narrow. But as his social circle grew and he was exposed to new genres his musical pallet has expanded. His go to genres are still heavy, but he’s not against asking what song just played if he liked it (unless you’re Jean, he’ll never give him the satisfaction).

I feel like his celebrity crush is Doja Cat. I have no evidence I just feel like he’d be into her.

Baby can NOT dance. if he tries hard he can bust a two step but usually he doesn’t usually put forth the effort though. It just gets worse if he drinks.

Very much a night owl but surprisingly, he doesn’t like to sleep in either. Feels like there’s too much stuff to do in a day to just waste it in bed. He contradicts himself though bc he can spend all morning in bed playing around on his phone (he’s addicted)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/23/robert-kagan-constitutional-crisis/

Much of this article is trash, written by a mewling conservative trying to distinguish Republicon policies and Republicon ideology as beyond and separate from "trump precursors" for "the last 30 years." Try 60 years, or more. Go all the way back to them with their fury and screams over Social Security as an evil Communist plot.

Kagan is a Never-trumper attempting to sound reasonable despite being a mental conservative, who thinks -- much like poor, beleaguered Joe Manchin -- that Democrats "need to let good Republicons" help them save the country.

He's one of those types of fools who, when he speaks of officials with integrity, is alluding to Mr. Anti-vote Raffensperger, who is to voting like so many white male Republicons are to immigration -- none too happy about illegal or legal. His hero Raffensperger is also one of the leading architects of the Republicon rash of Jim Crow 2.0 laws which Kagan points to as a prime symptom of Nazi-type fascism threatening American right now...but logical consistency fares extremely poorly on the Right.

However, there are some useful points in this article. The criticism leveled toward the Right by a [pre-trump] insider is one. And the insistent urgency of our nation's crisis is another.

"The United States is heading into its greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War, with a reasonable chance over the next three to four years of incidents of mass violence, a breakdown of federal authority, and the division of the country into warring red and blue enclaves. The warning signs may be obscured by the distractions of politics, the pandemic, the economy and global crises, and by wishful thinking and denial. But about these things there should be no doubt:

"First, [t]rump will be the Republican candidate for president in 2024. The hope and expectation that he would fade in visibility and influence have been delusional. He enjoys mammoth leads in the polls; he is building a massive campaign war chest; and at this moment the Democratic ticket looks vulnerable. Barring health problems, he is running. [Or legal problems. Or even better, in order to be a bit safer, both].

"Second, [t]rump and his Republican allies are actively preparing to ensure his victory by whatever means necessary. [t]rump’s charges of fraud in the 2020 election are now primarily aimed at establishing the predicate to challenge future election results that do not go his way. Some Republican candidates have already begun preparing to declare fraud in 2022, just as Larry Elder tried meekly to do in the California recall contest.

"Meanwhile, the amateurish 'stop the steal' efforts of 2020 have given way to an organized nationwide campaign to ensure that [t]rump and his supporters will have the control over state and local election officials that they lacked in 2020. Those recalcitrant Republican state officials who effectively saved the country from calamity by refusing to falsely declare fraud or to 'find' more votes for [t]rump are being systematically removed or hounded from office. Republican legislatures are giving themselves greater control over the election certification process. As of this spring, Republicans have proposed or passed measures in at least 16 states that would shift certain election authorities from the purview of the governor, secretary of state or other executive-branch officers to the legislature. An Arizona bill flatly states that the legislature may 'revoke the secretary of state’s issuance or certification of a presidential elector’s certificate of election' by a simple majority vote. Some state legislatures seek to impose criminal penalties on local election officials alleged to have committed 'technical infractions,' including obstructing the view of poll watchers.

"The stage is thus being set for chaos.

..."Most Americans — and all but a handful of politicians — have refused to take this possibility seriously enough to try to prevent it. As has so often been the case in other countries where fascist leaders arise, their would-be opponents are paralyzed in confusion and amazement at this charismatic authoritarian. They have followed the standard model of appeasement, which always begins with underestimation. The political and intellectual establishments in both parties have been underestimating [t]rump since he emerged on the scene in 2015. They underestimated the extent of his popularity and the strength of his hold on his followers; they underestimated his ability to take control of the Republican Party; and then they underestimated how far he was willing to go to retain power. The fact that he failed to overturn the 2020 election has reassured many that the American system remains secure, though it easily could have gone the other way — if Biden had not been safely ahead in all four states where the vote was close; if [t]rump had been more competent and more in control of the decision-makers in his administration, Congress and the states. As it was, [t]rump came close to bringing off a coup earlier this year...

..."Where does the Republican Party stand in all this? The party gave birth to and nurtured this movement; it bears full responsibility for establishing the conditions in which [t]rump could capture the loyalty of 90 percent of Republican voters. Republican leaders were more than happy to ride [t]rump’s coattails if it meant getting paid off with hundreds of conservative court appointments, including three Supreme Court justices; tax cuts; immigration restrictions; and deep reductions in regulations on business.

..."From the uneasy and sometimes contentious partnership during [t]rump’s four years in office, the party’s main if not sole purpose today is as the willing enabler of [t]rump’s efforts to game the electoral system to ensure his return to power.

..."With the party firmly under his thumb, [t]rump is now fighting the Biden administration on separate fronts. One is normal, legitimate political competition, where Republicans criticize Biden’s policies, feed and fight the culture wars, and in general behave like a typical hostile opposition.

"The other front is outside the bounds of constitutional and democratic competition and into the realm of illegal or extralegal efforts to undermine the electoral process. The two are intimately related, because the Republican Party has used its institutional power in the political sphere to shield [t]rump and his followers from the consequences of their illegal and extralegal activities in the lead-up to Jan. 6. Thus, Reps. Kevin McCarthy and Elise Stefanik, in their roles as party leaders, run interference for the [t]rump movement in the sphere of legitimate politics, while Republicans in lesser positions cheer on the Jan. 6 perpetrators, turning them into martyrs and heroes, and encouraging illegal acts in the future.

..."Even [t]rump opponents play along. Republicans such as Sens. Mitt Romney and Ben Sasse have condemned the events of Jan. 6, criticized [t]rump and even voted for his impeachment, but in other respects they continue to act as good Republicans and conservatives. On issues such as the filibuster, Romney and others insist on preserving 'regular order' and conducting political and legislative business as usual, even though they know that [t]rump’s lieutenants in their party are working to subvert the next presidential election.

"The result is that even these anti-[t]rump Republicans are enabling the insurrection. Revolutionary movements usually operate outside a society’s power structures. But the [t]rump movement also enjoys unprecedented influence within those structures. It dominates the coverage on several cable news networks, numerous conservative magazines, hundreds of talk radio stations and all kinds of online platforms. It has access to financing from rich individuals and the Republican National Committee’s donor pool. And, not least, it controls one of the country’s two national parties...

"The world will look very different in 14 months if, as seems likely, the Republican zombie party wins control of the House. At that point, with the political winds clearly blowing in his favor, [t]rump is all but certain to announce his candidacy, and social media constraints on his speech are likely to be lifted, since Facebook and Twitter would have a hard time justifying censoring his campaign. With his megaphone back, [t]rump would once again dominate news coverage, as outlets prove unable to resist covering him around the clock if only for financial reasons.

"But this time, [t]rump would have advantages that he lacked in 2016 and 2020, including more loyal officials in state and local governments; the Republicans in Congress; and the backing of GOP donors, think tanks and journals of opinion. And he will have the [t]rump movement, including many who are armed and ready to be activated, again. Who is going to stop him then?

..."[Republicons] have refused to work with Democrats to pass legislation limiting state legislatures’ ability to overturn the results of future elections, to ensure that the federal government continues to have some say when states try to limit voting rights, to provide federal protection to state and local election workers who face threats, and in general to make clear to the nation that a bipartisan majority in the Senate opposes the subversion of the popular will. Why?

[They, just like trump, want and intend to be in power at all costs.

..."We are already in a constitutional crisis. The destruction of democracy might not come until November 2024, but critical steps in that direction are happening now. In a little more than a year, it may become impossible to pass legislation to protect the electoral process in 2024. Now it is impossible only because anti-[t]rump Republicans, and even some Democrats, refuse to tinker with the filibuster. It is impossible because, despite all that has happened, some people still wish to be good Republicans [sic] even as they oppose [t]rump. These decisions will not wear well as the nation tumbles into full-blown crisis."

sarah, how can i even begin to talk my white middle class father out of my country's rising anti-immigrant and nationalist sentiment? i get very emotional arguing and it's not helping me get through to him at all. he's a rational, educated person but always convinced he's in the right and i have no idea how to approach this effectively

If you get a definitive, helpful answer to this question, please let me know. Particularly as someone who’s got her own white middle-class father, one thinks that men are genetically, innately Men (which is not a definition we created, but something ontologically real about that arrangement of DNA) and homophobia is something invented in the last decade or so (and so not something you can accuse the Catholic Church of practicing in the third century AD) and quote-unquote-activist judges are only ever liberals (never mind the Lochner court, or even the Rehnquist era).

…………..I have definitely cried after a frustrating conversation with my white middle class father about the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, so like. I get it. 

However, I have found there are a number of strategies that you can use with your Ideologically Opposed Loved One (IOLO) to start opening up these conversations to a genuine exchange of ideas rather than shouting at them across an impassible ravine full of recrimination.

1.) Let them talk. My mother is a dedicated hype-woman for Brené Brown, and is always recommending her TED talks to me. Now, while I disagree with Brown on some points, I agree that what she calls “rumble language” is a useful way of thinking about conversations with your IOLO. Rather than go for the throat, fight back, or point out how absolutely totally wrong!!! your IOLO is, ask them to explain themselves. Say, “I don’t understand.” Ask them to explain what they mean, when they say that immigrants are draining our social services. Have them tell you more about capitalism being The Best.

Let them talk. Let them talk at length, follow up with questions that clarify where they are and the space between you, because the next step is…

2.) Actually listen. My brain also goes “PING!!!” every time my white middle class father hits on a conservative talking point. It takes heroic effort not to snap “you know that’s what [Fox News talking head] said too,” or “deregulation has been a conservative hobby horse since Reagan,” or “just because you’re not willing to learn about history or interrogate your homophobia doesn’t mean I’m wrong.” But I can tell you: I have actually said those things out loud, and nothing shuts down a conversation like replying to an argument you’re not actually having.

It’s tempting to boil down your IOLO to the same back-and-forth you read about online. A reasonably informed liberal has a specter of an anti-immigrant nationalist in her head, along with that ghost’s best, most brilliantly burnished arguments. But unless your plan is to go back and forth with your IOLO and never agree on a starting point or make any progress at all….well, you’re going to have to listen to them specifically.

It’ll involve a lot of backing off, and letting them talk—asking rumble questions and then listening to the answer. Paraphrase what they said; if they push back by saying that’s not what they meant, then ask what they meant. Try to find those places where what’s preached on cable or through social media is different, is distinct, from what your IOLO believes.

Where they are, where they feel most strongly and in response to what they actually articulate, that’s where you want to apply pressure. Notice I’m not saying “shout at them until they get it.” Applying pressure is gradual, it’s a squeeze not a slap. It involves saying, calmly, “I don’t know if I agree with that,” or “What do you think about all that data that says immigrants contribute more to the economy than the social services they utilize?” It’s so easy to get angry and emotional---this stuff means a lot, this is important stuff---but shouting or crying or accusing is a slap. It unfortunately tends to shut down the conversation.

And that’s not productive, because the next step is:

3.) Apply pressure without anticipation of follow-through. I have been have the same 3 arguments with my father for the last 4-8 years. I can tell you that the beautiful fantasy where your IOLO comes to you and says, “You were right, I was a fool, you made such good points on October 12, 2019, that now I am saved and want to be an ally,” is a nonsense delusion. 

What you’re hoping for is a gradual erosion, like the sea beating against rocks. Eventually you’ll get sand, but mostly your job is to gradually push against an immovable object until it gives. Bit by bit. Grain of sand by grain of sand. Don’t expect to win every round, just state your case calmly and clearly, ask the right questions, and let your IOLO walk away with something new potentially fermenting in their brain.

It might take years. I’ve been talking to my mother about leftist issues for the last…half a decade; but it was only in the last six months that she (to my enormous surprise) went on a 5 minute rant about the fallacy of white suburbia. She actually uttered the phrase “redlining.” Sometimes, you just have to plant a seed, give someone a different argument, ask a question they didn’t realize was askable.

Destabilizing someone’s knowledge of the world is a process, not an event. And sometimes, amid all that tumult, it’s worthwhile to:

4.) Occasionally, let them be the expert (….just not in this). I had a few weeks’ vacation between my last job and current job, which I spent in my parents’ house. My father tends to come home for lunch—and since I was also there, we’d often have a casual conversation, talk about news or Netflix shows, his job and its frustrations. It was very normal, except for the one time I just….listened to him talk about the stock market.

Now, my dad is a dedicated investor and pays attention to all the details of the NASDAQ and the financial markets as a whole; he spends his free time reading books about investment and financial analysis. If he’d lived a different life, he might be manager of a mutual fund. This is his area, and when we started talking about whether the US might be headed for a recession—

I shut up. I honestly don’t know much about investing, but I wrestled every instinct I had to interrupt him or contradict him to the ground. I nodded. I active listened, echoing his points back to him. I did not interrupt, even when he started talking about the debt ceiling (something he and I disagree about).

And he noticed. I know he noticed, because when he and my mother came home after work, he mentioned our conversation to her. He was pleased and proud, both having had the opportunity to be the expert and teaching me something I ostensibly didn’t know. And the next time we argued, he was gentler, willing to consider my perspective since I had considered his.

When it comes to adult family, I think it’s easy to think of them as untouchable, unimpeachable and unchangeable, beyond any base emotional lures. Someone espousing an ideology you viciously hate and nothing more. But your IOLO is just as human as you are, and we all seek affirmation and confirmation. You want to win points to expend upon a future date? Let them have their victory. And later, claim yours.

In what condition does a religious belief becomes dogmatic and toxic to its follower?

When a person thinks that Islam is meant to replace their humanity. Below is an excerpt from my book An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Understanding Islam and Muslims on this question.

George Orwell and George Eliot

George Orwell, in his Road to Wigan Pier, has relevant things to say about this discussion:

for the food-crank is by definition a person willing to cut himself off from human society in hopes of adding five years onto the life of his carcase; that is, a person out of touch with common humanity.1

In Orwell’s time, the food-crank was what the extremist vegan is today, someone picky about food and willing to inconvenience, insult and look down on those around them for the sake of their ideas about eating. His critique for the preference of ideology over common humanity among certain types of people extends to Catholics, in a passage that could equally apply to some Muslims today:

One of the analogies between Communism and Roman Catholicism is that only the ‘educated’ are completely orthodox. The most immediately striking thing about the English Roman Catholics – I don’t mean the real Catholics, I mean the converts: Ronald Knox, Arnold Lunn et hoc genus— is their intense self-consciousness. Apparently they never think, certainly they never write, about anything but the fact that they are Roman Catholics; this single fact and the self-praise resulting from it form the entire stock-in-trade of the Catholic literary man. But the really interesting thing about these people is the way in which they have worked out the supposed implications of orthodoxy until the tiniest details of life are involved. Even the liquids you drink, apparently, can be orthodox or heretical; hence the campaigns of Chesterton, ‘Beachcomber’, etc., against tea and in favour of beer. According to Chesterton, tea-drinking is ‘pagan’, while beer-drinking is ‘Christian’, and coffee is ‘the puritan’s opium’. It is unfortunate for this theory that Catholics abound in the ‘Temperance’ movement and the greatest tea-boozers in the world are the Catholic Irish; but what I am interested in here is the attitude of mind that can make even food and drink an occasion for religious intolerance. A working-class Catholic would never be so absurdly consistent as that. He does not spend his time in brooding on the fact that he is a Roman Catholic, and he is not particularly conscious of being different from his non-Catholic neighbours. Tell an Irish dock-labourer in the slums of Liverpool that his cup of tea is ‘pagan’, and he will call you a fool. And even in more serious matters he does not always grasp the implications of his faith. In the Roman Catholic homes of Lancashire you see the crucifix on the wall and the Daily Worker2 on the table. It is only the ‘educated’ man, especially the literary man, who knows how to be a bigot. And, mutatis mutandis, it is the same with Communism. The creed is never found in its pure form in a genuine proletarian.3

Many expect Muslims to act exactly like this minority of Catholics Orwell describes, seemingly eating religion for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Orwell contrasts this religion-obsessed mindset among certain Catholic intellectuals with the mindset of ordinary Catholics, who better represent real, embodied Catholicism.

For the average Catholic living in a Catholic society, religion is not something to bring into every discussion. It is, in fact, something that is very rarely talked about. Real Catholics embody Catholicism as humans, rather than ignoring common humanity, things like politeness and decency toward others, in the name of religion. A religion-obsessed Catholic, similar to a recent convert to an extremist form of Islam, tries to make their religion replace their humanity, making it explain everything and be everything to them. This causes them to join a class of bigots that are out of touch with the rest of society.

A Catholic like that, instead of enjoying the loving atmosphere of Christmas morning at a relative’s house, uses the occasion to lecture the family about how Christmas is really pagan. A Muslim extremist, too, if one makes the mistake of inviting her to a birthday party, will likely end up giving her friend a lecture on how a true Muslim should not celebrate such heathen practices. In this way, those who make religion replace their humanity insult many other people around them due to their belief that their being religious exempts them from common decency and make themselves a nuisance in society. This is not merely a problem of the religious; the same scenario is repeated whenever a person embraces any ideology strongly enough. A “true believer” in Marxism is going to be perfectly happy to offend everyone around them in the name of fighting capitalism.

Orwell contrasts the self-conscious, recently converted Catholic intellectuals with the millions of Catholics who have been practicing this religion for centuries. The first is a tiny minority that has a total view of religion as a replacement for common decency and culture. The second group forms the actual representative group of Catholicism, which very much respects common decency and culture. The first group is radical and wants to abolish everything in the name of religion. The second group is conservative and is happy enough to enjoy life as it is. The first group thinks mankind is raw material that can be remade. The second group understands that humans by and large remain the way they are no matter what one tries to make out of them.

The majority of Muslim men and women are like that Catholic majority. Tell any educated Muslim that their love for science fiction films makes them less “Muslim” and they will either be insulted or laugh at the foolishness of the statement.

Many Western writers about Islam are unfortunately often incapable of conceiving of a faithful Muslim who is as intelligent and independent-minded as themselves, believing that a proper Muslim is one who is a nuisance in polite society just like an extremist vegan. It is inconceivable that a man or woman of their own caliber could enter into a covenant with God to abide by His commandments and ethics, acting as His steward while maintaining a fierce individuality and independence of mind. To them, being a devout Muslim is always associated with some sort of sickness of the mind; the most devout is the most stupid because he or she is going to be the one who is best at acting like a scripture-controlled robot. They think that the only reason a Muslim can be intelligent and independent-minded is if they abandon parts of Islam.

Thus in books like Lost Enlightenment by S. Frederick Starr4, the writer does his best to stretch the evidence so that all Muslims who accomplished some great work are dismissed as actually freethinkers who did not take their faith seriously, while also having a rather snarky attitude toward great Muslim thinkers like al-Ghāzalī who were clearly orthodox. A Muslim must supposedly first give up the stupidity-promoting total religion that is Islam in order to become partly human and achieve something of human worth. Al-Ghāzalī, despite his great achievements, is worthless because he made the unforgivable sin of defending orthodoxy, which to Starr is proof that he was subhuman and twisted, since no proper human could ever be fully religious in his view.

1 George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1958, 136.

2 A popular communist publication at the time.

3 Ibid., 209-210.

4 See S. Frederick Starr, Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2013. See Frank Griffel’s devastating review in Die Welt des Islams 56, no. 2 (2016): 272-278.

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to Political Confessional, a column about the views that Americans are scared to share with their friends and neighbors. In an increasingly polarized political climate, adherence to party or ideological orthodoxy seems de rigueur. Social media serves only to amplify that perception at times.

But Americans’ political views are often idiosyncratic and sometimes offensive, and they rarely adhere neatly to any particular party line. In this column, we want to dig into Americans’ messy opinions on politics, morality and social mores. We hope that this exercise gives readers a glimpse into the minds of those with whom they might disagree — or agree! If you have a political belief that you’re willing to share with us, fill out this form — we might get in touch.

This week we talked with Jennifer, a 38 year old white woman from North Carolina who wrote in to say, “I am an evangelical Christian but I think Trumpism is actually, truly a religious cult.” She feels “horrified to watch most of my friends and family believe Trump is God’s chosen one … I feel like I’m living inside of the story “The Emperor Has No Clothes.” Am I the crazy one?! Why can no one in church see he’s naked!!!!!”

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Clare Malone: When did you come to this opinion and how?

Jennifer: It was leading up to the 2016 election. And it really was hearing the sound bites of the actual words coming out of Donald Trump. Now, it wasn’t certain talking heads or certain news programs. It was literally the quotes or the video clips of him speaking that were so offensive to me. I couldn’t imagine voting for him even though I’ve always been a Republican.

I would probably consider myself a little bit of a centrist at this point. I mean, I’m pro-life — like, babies being born but also refugee children being cared for. I think it’s hypocritical to be here for one and not the other. And I care about women in crisis too, I just don’t think that these issues need to be so dehumanizing for certain people to win power.

CM: Take me back to 2016. When did you start to hear people start to make justifications for Trump?

Jennifer: My friends were conflicted when he made the remark about grabbing a woman. But once he ended up winning, then I felt like people really started to justify voting for him.

It’s just weird in this polarized environment because I can’t call myself a member of the GOP anymore. I am not super liberal, but I definitely can’t go along with the leadership of the country right now.

CM: Why do you think they have started justifying his actions? Is it the news they watch? Is there biblical justification to say, “Sure, God has picked an imperfect vessel.”

Jennifer: I think part of it is people feel the need to be consistent. If you went ahead and voted for the person, you don’t want to feel bad about yourself, you want to come up with reasons to feel good about the fact that you voted for them. If you agree with the president, you’re going to say we should pray for him. The Bible tells us to pray for our leaders. But if there is a person in power who is not of your political party, do you show them the same grace? Do you pray for them as well? I feel like it’s this double standard which I don’t think is biblical. I think that’s just our human nature.

CM: How do you feel about that personally? How do you feel about Trump and forgiveness?

Jennifer: Well, if you want to talk about the Bible, I think the Bible requires repentance for God to grant forgiveness to people. And so I think I haven’t seen any true repentance in any of his actions. I would use scripture that talks more about how a wise man deals with a fool — there’s a verse that says if a wise man tries to reason with a fool the fool only rages and laughs.

CM: Would you say that the attitude of people in your community about Trump has changed the way that you feel about your church?

Jennifer: I’m confronted with this reality of like four out of five evangelicals voting for this man. And it’s like, are we seeing the same reality? It’s made me want to be careful what church I attend, and what programs I’m involved with, because I think this is going to have really long term, deeply negative effects on the American culture’s view of Christians. The challenge for me is to think about how this one person, Donald Trump, doesn’t dictate who Jesus Christ is. The challenge is to focus on Jesus himself.

CM: You said earlier that you’re pro-life in the sense of wanting babies to be born but you also care about refugee children. How have the kids-in-cages news stories been received in your community given that the Trump administration has been defending that policy?

Jennifer: I do have some friends who are troubled by that. But I also have friends popping up in my Facebook newsfeed defending those policies. I think that we have to almost dehumanize people in our view of them in order to justify. So, if you talk to someone who’s very liberal and talk about the issue of abortion, they’re going to say that’s not a baby. That’s not a person. And if you talk to conservatives about a child of an immigrant in a cage, they’re going to say, they’re not Americans. They don’t belong here. Their parents broke the law. They deserve this. They’re distancing themselves from that humanity, leading to them to look at those children differently than they would look at an American child.

CM: Are you thinking of yourself as a Democrat right now?

Jennifer: I’ve switched my registration to independent. I have been GOP my whole life. At this point, I really want to see how the polling is and throw my support to whoever seems most likely to beat Donald Trump.

CM: Have you brought up your controversial opinion to family members or people in the community who support Trump?

Jennifer: I find it really hard to break through. I have some friends that are more extreme than others, like a couple friends who are really talking almost like he’s almost a messiah of sorts.

CM: How have you dealt with it on an interpersonal level? Do you switch the conversation topic at a certain point?

Jennifer: My husband and I don’t agree about it. We’ve only been married a couple years. If things get too heated we table the discussion. I think sometimes it helps if I can share personal stories or ways that seem to affect me personally; like, if I can talk about how upsetting it is being a woman to hear the derogatory comments. It’s frustrating. You care about someone and you’re on different pages.

The funny thing is, I felt like I wasn’t that political of a person before 2016. But then I just felt so deeply offended by the attitudes towards women, towards minorities, the horrible things happening at the border. And I mean, to be honest, I just expect more of Christians. Because I am a Christian.

For me, the challenge is, how do I keep from villainizing or dehumanizing those that I disagree with? And I feel like that has to start with me.

options trading course india South Carolina Well, strange thing is, after more than 15 years of trading options, I have never experienced losing all my money within a few days nor going bankrupt.

options trading course india South Carolina Now, some may assume such assessments are little more than 'psycho-babble' that seek to examine options trading from an over-analytical perspective. This may be the case in some instances but as a general explanation of what motivates people towards options trading, it is definitely not something you want to overlook. By having a clear understanding of your own psychological makeup, you can develop the proper insight into how to be effective in the art of trading. Simply put, some people are more cut out for options trading than others. Those that are conservative in their investment strategies might wish to limit options trading to a smaller part of their overall portfolio. Those that can be considered quite aggressive in their approach may look towards possibly using options as a hedge to their portfolio. Again, your own personal psychological makeup regarding comfort levels of trading in essential in options. This will certainly help promote your ability to discover the proper answer to whether or not you are cut out for options trading. How can you discover whether or not you have the mindset of an options trader? The first step involves honestly answering whether or not you are someone that possesses the discipline to be an options trader. Some may believe they have the discipline to succeed. However, believing you possess certain attributes to a specific degree and actually possessing those attributes to the proper degree are two completely different things. Knowing exactly where you stand in terms of your mindset and your levels of discipline will aid in boosting your chances of success. For example, someone who needs to keep fiddling with their account by buying and selling every few days isn't someone who should be investing in options! The commissions alone will eat you up. Similarly someone who like a lot of excitement in their trading should probably stay away from options. Having a quality options trading strategy is helpful. Putting the options trading strategy through to fruition is even more helpful. But, once again, there is a big difference in having the desire to follow such a process and actually following through with it. Those that are able to follow through with such steps may be limited in number. No, that is not said as a means of undermining anyone's motivation, morale, or desire. Rather, it is meant as a way of properly forecasting the management of your venture and assessing the risk of getting involved with options trading. You also need a plan for when the market goes against your strategy, so that you don't make decisions because you're panicking.

It has been said success starts with the right mental makeup. If you can adapt your mindset to your psychological approach to trading, you may find success is not as elusive as you think. How People Lose Their Shirts in Options TradingYou must have heard horror stories surrounding options trading before. Stories such as how some people lose their whole account within a few days and even stories of options traders going bankrupt in express time. These stories have no doubt cast a shadow over options trading and there are even people who now tout that options trading is as risky as futures trading. Well, strange thing is, after more than 15 years of trading options, I have never experienced losing all my money within a few days nor going bankrupt. This led me to wonder why these things happen to some options traders. After some investigation, I conclude that it is not options trading that breaks accounts but specific things some options traders tend to do, especially beginners, that opens the door to such financial disasters. I narrowed these reasons down to two main ones. The first of these is that some options traders trade options just like they trade stocks; buying call options with their whole account on that one "hot stock. "Yes, this is the number reason why most options beginners lose their shirt. motley fool options trading South Carolina As long as you do not have to physically execute the stop loss.

trading options advice South Carolina

However, when you buy call options on stocks that didn't eventually move up as expected, the call options can expire worthless by expiration, taking your WHOLE account with it if you bought those call options with all the money you had! This problem is made even more pronounced by the fact that options have a definite expiration date that goes from a few months to a year for some stocks but never forever. This means that you do not have the luxury of holding on to bad trades forever, hoping they will come back in a few years time. Professional options traders like me only enter a single position with money we can afford to lose. If I intend to lose no more than 10% of my account on any one trade, I do not use more than 10% of my account in a single trade. That's right, you NEVER buy a single options position or options contract with all the money you have! Although that would have made sense in stock trading, it is pure suicide and gamble in options trading. The other reason is trading credit spreads or naked option writing without using stop loss. Many options beginners were taken in by the apparent "free money" phenomena of writing naked options positions unaware that most of these credit strategies have unlimited loss potential. For instance, if you wrote call options (shorting call options), you would make a fixed premium in profit if the stock went downwards or sideways. Some "gurus" call this "playing bookmaker". Well, they are right that you are playing bookmaker to gamblers by selling options to them but they forgot to mention the fact that sometimes, gamblers win big too. When you write call options, your position will make an incrementally bigger loss as the stock price rises! It will continue to make bigger and bigger loss as long as the stock continues to rise.

gold options trading strategies South Carolina Having a quality options trading strategy is helpful. Putting the options trading strategy through to fruition is even more helpful. But, once again, there is a big difference in having the desire to follow such a process and actually following through with it. Those that are able to follow through with such steps may be limited in number. No, that is not said as a means of undermining anyone's motivation, morale, or desire. Rather, it is meant as a way of properly forecasting the management of your venture and assessing the risk of getting involved with options trading. You also need a plan for when the market goes against your strategy, so that you don't make decisions because you're panicking. Yes, trading in options needs to be looked from the perspective of managing a small business. When operating a small business, you need to assess the risk associated with a venture. You also need to assess the risks and potentials associated with the success or failure of the business. This same ideology needs to be put towards options trading.

trading 60 second binary options South Carolina That's right, automated stop loss that works without human involvement.

spy options trading South Carolina Professional options traders always trade unlimited loss potential positions with an AUTOMATED stop loss point.

Much less trying to learn by trial and error. Yes, trial and error is very options/">expensive in options trading as you cannot hold on to a mistake like in stock trading forever hoping for a come back. Options expire so options don't give you the ability to hold on to your mistakes forever. So, what is the correct way to learn?To learn how to trade options, you need to first of all learn what call options and put options are. All optionable stocks come with both call options and put options. Call options allow you to buy a stock at a fixed price no matter what price the stock is and put options allow you to sell a stock at a fixed price no matter what price the stock is. This means that if you buy a call option and the price of the stock goes up, the call option would make a profit because you still have the right to buy at a price lower than the stock price. As such, you would buy call options when you think a stock is going to go up. Conversely, put options allow you to sell a stock at a fixed price. This means that if you buy a put option and the price of the stock goes down, the put option would make a profit because you still have the right to sell at a price higher than the stock price. As such, you would buy put options when you think a stock is going to go down.

To those who think they have enslaved me today

Congratulations humanity: Today (20 January 2021) the American circus known as the inauguration of tooootally legit president Joe Biden took place. Behind tanks and military walls, Biden committed the political equivalent of masturbation by inaugurating himself to himself... with a little help from a few "important" people who were also there, but since they all wore Covidist masks my brain could only make out the NPC ID's rather than names and traits distinguishing them as individuals. A bunch of flags were shoved into the ground where millions of people would normally sit: The citizens by and for which he was allegedly elected couldn't be there for his inauguration, partly after it was discovered they're not citizens at all but mobs of insurrectionists who are invading their own selves! The empty streets and barbwire fences holding that pesky population back did a great job portraying the inauguration of a president voted by the majority... you could clearly see how loved by the people and legitimately elected he was! My only regret is that Lady Gaga was involved in this spectacle: They should have brought in 50 Cent or Justin Bieber, which would have done an even better job portraying the seriousness of the event and the lucidity of the people who rule us. Biden himself broke a new record, being able to read a speech from his laptop for 10 minutes straight without ever stopping and asking "wait... where am I, who are you people".

At this point the ones who radicalized society and sparked a silent civil war are close to gaining absolute power and becoming an American CCP. I'm well aware of what their next step is: They will harass and terrorize everyone who doesn't bow to their ideology and way of life, by painting them as racist Nazi extremists or a danger in other ways, inoculating systematic fear toward them to the masses. That's how over the past years the Democrat party turned most Americans against its political opponents: Obsessively associating Trump with hate while creating a cult of social justice worship which infiltrated every fiber of society. People happily bought it, even most beings I know are affected by this without even realizing something is up. The ruling elite now has a system of radicalization that works perfectly, ready to be used to program the remote-controlled masses against anyone on command.

As of 2020 the existing system is backed by an imaginary deadly pandemic, which now has an imaginary vaccine to accompany it. The infamous virus story was used to double down on what was started using social (in)justice over the last 4 years, further radicalizing people through fear using a new excuse via a secondary system. This one's more convenient since while you can't tell who is a Trump or Biden supporter just by looking at their face, those of us who don't dress up in cult uniforms (A.K.A. wear a mask) can be easily identified as ideological enemies and targeted for dissent... obviously under the cover of esoteric microscopic shenanigans used to proclaim invisible danger, it's definitely not an ideological dangers they truly fear. We're now divided between those who worship COVID-19 (or rather fear of it) and those who are fighting against ruthless slavery and savage efforts to take our lives away from us. We're about to be divided between "the plagued" and "the vaccinated" soon; I have no doubt that those of us who won't respond to the advances of the medical rapists chasing us with syringes are in for a new wave of persecution, applied brutally and systematically in hope of making us break, until we choose to let ourselves be injected with whatever poison those psychopaths created in their labs.

Now do you think it's just pro Trump people, or those who refuse to wear the muzzle made of cloth, who they will come after in the end? To every niche community who is reading this... furries, bronies, vore, etc... never forget those words: Their system will turn on you too! Once they're seen as an obstacle, they'll infiltrate those communities to "correct" them next... or if they can't or it's not worth it, they'll use fear to convince the majority they're evil and must be exterminated for the greater good. What the hell do you think I kept trying to prevent!? Do you imagine their "great empire" of obedient and socially responsible workers has any place for those like us in it?! Look at what Furaffinity, a furry art site that was infiltrated by Antifa and has its TOS written by its extremists, is now doing to artists who draw not just "socially unjust porn" but even stuff like political art under the lie of fighting hate! No... it's not "just them", no community or individual is safe from their control I assure you.

Many of us will resist until the end: They can put 100 Bidens in power... they are nothing to me, they ceased impressing me long ago; My mind has been prepared since an early age for dealing with this sort of thing, I'm a veteran when it comes to this shit! I lived the last years of my childhood waiting to be kidnapped and taken to a reeducation clinic by everyone around me, where I expected to be tied up and subjected to electroshock conversion "therapy" to have my identity erased. Especially once I realized in what danger I was for imagining thoughts forbidden to people under the age of 18 from my young age... were society able to read my mind and notice, I would have been locked away in a mental institute and injected with drugs until I'd be a vegetable today. But I was smart enough to stay silent and escape, they couldn't access my thoughts to know who I am. The same people who couldn't "purge" my identity when I was young are now back in a far more hideous and demented form, coming after us even as adults to do the same thing: Reprogram us to be ideal members of the glorious society they have planned.

All humanity had to do was simple: Put an end to all doctrines and create a neutral and disinterested government, leading to a world that would keep its nose to the pavement and not care about any social issues any more. Why do you think I supported Trump... because I have any love for that conservative fool? I sided with him because he was going to maintain a safe ignorance... no morals, no empathy, no more being forcefully "protected" by disgusting strangers who allegedly care for you or know better than you, no laws censoring people under the pretext of fighting harm, everyone kept in ignorance so we could be safe from their feelings and assumptions. That's why I waited for the army to arrest Biden today and hold a military trial instead of that silly inauguration... sadly they received a new order, he was allowed to carry on with his sham inauguration for reasons beyond me. Now I have a new desire: I'd like to see Trump arrested! For failing to contain the moral plague enslaving society and destroying our freedom, after he promised us the deep state and its social justice would be exposed live for the world to see what they did. He failed to contain humanity's stupid values and protect us from morality... he is of no use to me either, he could not bring us true freedom.

Just one question for the actual tyrant lovers, who will soon flock and regroup under Biden in their attempt to amalgamate us into their responsible world: How's living the socially responsible life really going? Do you enjoy your slavery? Your blind dedication to "muh fellow man"? This self-sacrifice bullshit, a life free of any joy in the name of safety and protection? You have what you wanted: A world where any dream of being happy is demonized because it's dangerous, where certain thoughts are carefully restricted to certain people, where you're the slaves of "experts" who will inform you what you think and feel without you even having to bother to checking your own mind! How long until it will be YOU that breaks? How much servitude can you take before you too will have had it? Or maybe you're so dedicated that you'll slave away until the end... never snapping, not stopping to wonder how sad and boring this life is and how pointless any sacrifice. What would happen if you knew the technology to give you a perfect and safe life exists, while all significant issues society still faces today are man made, most of the time intentionally? I see more violence and crime on the news: People are finally going nuts and losing it, from being locked up and having masks forced onto their faces! How much until it's finally enough, how much pain must they accumulate, how much damage must they cause, how much until the mainstream finally admits it drove everyone there by forcing its madness on us?

I know they want to see me suffer for resisting them, all their governments and secret services do. But the fun thing is, their followers are suffering far more in the end! For I am the one still sitting here up on my throne, from which they couldn't take me down and make me "socially responsible adult" like them nor involve me in their scary fantasies. I live in the real world: A world that has no issues other than some poverty, where racism is a thing of the ancient past and a joke to worry about today, where viruses are a microscopic fantasy... a modern life where anyone can do whatever the hell they want! Just what we would all have if only everyone simply minded their own business and didn't make a big deal about anything. Now that's reality... the reality they renounced in order to worship fear, for no reason other than getting sick of being too happy! I'm laughing at their burden and all the efforts they make for nothing, fighting against things that don't exist... a burden they could let go of anytime, if only they refused to keep accepting all them responsibilities and demand it. How does it feel like to be the fools in the end, just when you thought I was your victim forever? Because while you pull that mask tightly on your little face to protect "your fellow man" from something that's all in your mind, I piss on it all and still live life freely and happily, the life you allowed taken away from you for no reason! Do you hate me for outsmarting you? I definitely don't mind if you do: Hate is all I have left to feed on in a world like this. And I enjoy it even more knowing no one will ever know nor even be able to comprehend the true reasons why I do this.

I’ve Been an Atheist A Lot Longer Than I Thought

[And that’s why I agree with Penn so very often]

I was raised a Catholic in a conservative town. All of my friends were either Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, and every other religious group known to man. Not once did I ever meet an atheist growing up, I firmly believe the first atheist I ever met was me. This goes way back to when I was seven years old. I played every sport as a kid. Soccer, basketball, volleyball, tennis, swim team, you name it. This story is from the basketball era of 2004-2006. Specifically, the early summer of 2005. 

I don’t remember much from this year, other than it was a program called “Upward” and a heavily Christian one at that. Basically, we played at a local church court and prayed a lot and gave out participation trophies, all that good stuff. For each year of the program, a music album was made to play at games to hype everyone up, or something. It was called “Scriptunes” (no joke, that’s actually a clever name) and had about ten songs based off of bible verses. I, of course, had a favorite one. It was the song that most resembled rock (an ongoing theme in my youth, and no wonder why I’m now a metalhead) and I only just recently figured out the name of the song, because growing up I thought it was literally just called “Acts 17:24.” Turns out it was named “Lord of Heaven and Earth.” Seven year old Lazer was obsessed with this song, and I think that continued until I was about 14. What can I say, good music sticks with you.

At first, I just blindly loved this song. I learned all of the lyrics, and would annoyingly belt it out from my crap CD player, you know, the ones that didn’t work unless you held them at the right angle. I can recite that song at any given moment (although, I’ll have to work hard to counteract the melody of the song, since it’d be weird to recite the tune) So, with perfect vocal control, I’ll lay down my favorite verse as a child. “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of Heaven and Earth and does not live in temples built by hand.” (Acts! Seventeen twenty-four! Acts! Seventeen twenty-four!) You can look up the song and see why it’s so catchy.  

Seven year old Lazer didn’t really know what it meant, but over the next few years I began to interpret it a very personal way, and in hindsight, a strongly atheist point of view. Having never met an atheist, I was none the wiser. I believe this was the same year I started going to horse camp. The program I loved was a weeklong overnight camp, and we got to ride horses pretty much twice a day. This camp was also home to a Christian college, and the camp was also very religion-heavy. Praying before every meal, praying before every trail ride, praying all of the time because why the fuck not? I was never down with the whole freelance-praying thang cause being a Catholic meant you only had to memorize the Hail Mary, the Lord’s Prayer, and saying Grace, and you’d be set for life. So, I never participated in praying. 

Another thing we did was have a campfire every night, and we’d listen to testimony after testimony from counselors and our activities director (who I believe is the kindest person I’ve ever met) And you guessed it! Jesus songs, because after all, we were at Jesus camp. But, none of those songs every thrilled me the way my song did in 2005. Over the next few years of horse camp, we’d sometimes post our favorite bible verses on our beds, or make little crafts to show around with them inscribed onto it, and the whole time my favorite verse was Acts 17:24. It never changed. Over years and years, until I was 15, it never changed. It was when I started working at the camp myself that I was asked to explain why it was my favorite verse. (How I went this long without being asked that I have no idea) And lo and behold, my response was a telltale sign of an atheist (I had still never met one in person)

Basically, I thought the verse was directing me to put my faith in people instead of relying on places or constructs to hold my faith steady. God “does not live in temples built by hand.” I had never heard someone say the next sentence, and it was of my own creation. “I don’t need to go to church every week, or buy a new bible, or have a rosary, because I am constantly surrounded by christ, because He is in people, not those material things.” 15 year old Lazer was insightful as hell. I told myself that for years. I never believed in Sunday mass, because I thought it was weird for people having to constantly go to church to affirm their ongoing faith. If they believed in God, why did they have to go to church every week? Were they secretly scared they’d magically lose their faith if they went a whole week without listening, preaching, or praying for God? That, was the first sign of an atheist viewpoint. I had still never met an atheist. After that, until I was about 18, I constantly questioned God. I hated being forced to go to church, I hated having to go to Sunday school, I hated how everyone I knew treated my queer friends and my trans brother (not well at all) and I soon learned to hate any mention of religion. I was slowly becoming aware that religion was being shoved down my throat, and I’d had enough. Then I actually met another atheist. (this is where the story gets good)

It starts out with me watching Whose Line is it Anyway? I binged the entire second era and started seeing ads for another CW show, “Penn & Teller: Fool Us.” I then fondly remember watching their special “Off the Deep End” Back in 2006, when I was 8. I had kept up with them as closely as an 8 year old could. It was hard since my parents thought the internet was evil and they thought Penn & Teller were not “kid-friendly” (they weren’t entirely wrong) However, I learned Penn was a juggler, and that week I taught myself how to juggle with little balled up socks. I don’t know how I did it, but little Lazer had crazy good hand-eye coordination and I learned how to juggle in like, two hours, then I just had to get REALLY good at it. I could juggle for an hour straight, and after I got real juggling bags I could do it for two hours.

Ok back to the present. I’m seeing ads for Fool Us and decide to watch back all of the episodes (I’d seen a few in the past) and by the time I got to season two I was obsessed. These guys are the silliest and most talented performers I’ve seen, and thanks to YouTube I almost immediately learned that they were skeptics, and Penn is a die-hard atheist. The thing that really got me going, is that my ideology on religion was quite similar to his. Penn has a lot of faith in people, and not in everyone’s favorite imaginary friend in the sky. He made me realize that I can take Jesus, God, and all religion out of the equation. My belief that there was God in some people, was easily transformed into something simpler. That there is unequivocal goodness in people. Some people are just good people. Christians will say they are “Christlike” and other religions will put them on a pedestal of equal value. I just think they are good.

My history of being a theist ends on the same day I became an atheist. The day prior I had spoken briefly with the men of the hour, Penn Jillette and Teller. The day everything changed for me was after I had seen their show in Las Vegas. After running down the aisles and out into the lobby, they stick around and talk to anyone that wants to meet them after the show. I wanted Penn to sign his book Presto! as a memento to take home, and while my dad got the signatures (without me? I know, but I was talking to Teller so I didn’t want to interrupt Teller to go tell my dad to wait) Teller signed a torn card prop that he ran offstage to give me during the show. I said thank you and goodbye to Teller (I was the last person he talked to of the meet and greet crowd) and I ran over to Penn and waited very timidly so I could also talk to him. I ended up being the last person, which was weird because there’s usually a handful of people that want to be the “last” person for some reason. I was just waiting around for my turn and I happened to be the last. Penn comes over to me and I get the chance to tell him a single sentence. (In my head I swear it was way more than that but what came out was pretty suffice) I tell him “I was raised in a Catholic family, but because of you I’m an atheist and I appreciate you so much for that.” I was instantly teary eyed because the look Penn gave me was so extremely loving and supportive that in that moment, I realized that he might be the only one to respond to that sentence in that way. Most of my peers are definitely not going to have a warm welcome to me telling them I’m an atheist. He gave me a very tight hug (he probably realized my right-wing-freak of a dad was the one standing behind me taking a video. Also, that video is adorable as hell.) Then we swiveled around to take a picture and he pulled me in tight and rested his head on top of mine. Pretty cute stuff.

Um, yeah that about does it. Penn was the first person I came out to, and I’m glad to know that was a turning point. Among other things (these two have inspired me in a huge way since I was a kid) this was the one moment I felt I could move on from my entire life of being a Catholic, and I can just be me, nothing else. I don’t feel like I have to identify with any religion anymore. I’d like to end this story with something along the lines of “they hugged and Lazer lived happily ever after!” because I know that there’s hard times ahead that will come and go, but I also want to end with an important message for kids my age and younger that I wish I was told growing up. That is, you don’t have to be religious. I always thought if I wasn’t a Catholic, then what was I? The answer was never “non-religious” because of course, that meant you had to turn away from God or something. Bottom line, you’re not turning away from anything. You’re turning towards reality, common sense, and unconditional love and trust. You’re only leaving those shitty dogmas behind.

- Lazer, September 11, 2017

I’m Calling Bullshit on This New American Culture

We all hit a breaking point. For me it was a report this week that over 200 members of the ACLU began complaining about its rigid stance in support of freedom of speech. What the fuck? The ACLU exists to insure individual rights and liberties are not destroyed by government regulation, restrictive laws or overly sensitive snowflakes. I would think that any intentional action on the part of the members of the ACLU to surrender even an inch of freedom of speech should be met with immediate dismissal of said member. Yet this is where we are.---BULLSHIT!

This is coming off a week where we experienced yet another horrific massacre. Internet experts jumped all over that terrible incident. Not willing nor humble enough to let people mourn, fringe elements and power brokers rushed to politicize the event. The experts on the right were ready to blame ISIS or Al Qaeda. The experts on the left new the exact reason. Guns, guns, guns. So ready to blame the NRA, gun owners, Republicans and Trump, opinion and headline drivers creamed their pants rushing to judgement. Both sides embracing the adage never let a good crisis go to waste. Fucking parasites and bloodsuckers!---BULLSHIT!

In the aftermath of Las Vegas, we were treated to the most unified efforts to date to cast white males as the ultimate evil infecting the land. Soapbox preaching from late night (white) comedians, without a hint of irony, condemned white men as the reason this happened. The Independent (UK) stated that all masculinity was toxic.---BULLSHIT!

If we didn't get blasted with enough, the current headlines scream of a powerful Hollywood mogul and major fundraiser for democrats, being accused of multiple accounts of sexual harassment. Given the proclivities of Hollywood, casting couches, rape, pedophilia, drug addiction, exploitation and even its own type of segregation, what surprises me is that: 1. It was revealed at all, especially given that it was the New York Times (a paper that just ran a story about how communism has benefited women). 2. The amount of silence coming from Hollywood. Had the person in question been a republican there would be a crowd of stars with pitchforks and torches ready to condemn him immediately. But since he supports the right causes, and to the right people, silence. Remember, this same crowd rushes to work with Woody Allen and Roman Polanski. ---BULLSHIT!

It was about a year ago when news broke that candidate Trump liked to “grab em by their pxxxy” The country was rightfully shocked, outraged and insulted. Those on the left were among the most vocal of voices opposing his disgusting comments. Yet when it is one of their own, they forget how to talk.---BULLSHIT!

As I just said, the NY Times, THE paper of record, recently ran an article about how well women did in communist China. The most influential paper in America has been subversively pushing for communism. Encouraging people to “get past the name”. That any organization in America, especially its most influential and important newspaper, a paper which has benefited greatly from freedom of the press, freedom of speech and all around freedom of the economy, could advocate a government system that removes freedom, imprisons dissidents, utilizes a secret police force and controls all aspects of life could in anyway support or advocate for that same political/economic structure is beyond asinine It is fucking suicidal and stupid.---BULLSHIT!

To further show how far lost we are, 40% of millennials support restrictions on free speech. Let me repeat this. They support restrictions on free speech. They want to say anything they want (because no one is ever going to self-censor) yet want to control what others (conservatives) say. The excuse of limiting hate speech is the focal point of this desire, however, given the overly sensitive natures and lack of emotional strength in today’s youth, anything they dislike would be condemned as hate, thereby silencing any opposition by hiding behind the wall of hate.---BULLSHIT!

I have always supported the 2nd amendment in an intellectual way however given legitimate threats to restrictions on the 1st amendment, I am beginning to support the 2nd much more passionately. If for no other reason than because those who oppose the 2nd amendment are now advocating violence and death for gun owners.---BULLSHIT!

We are experiencing a cultural movement where our hope for the future, our next generation of leaders, artists, entrepreneurs and innovators, are willing relinquishing their and our freedoms because they don't like certain words or ideas. Yes! Many ideas, like racism, hate, sexism, white power, black power, or any other kind of power, is scary and offensive. Yet we need the 1st amendment to get those ideas out into the open so we can oppose them through the free exchange of ideas. Any desire to relinquish freedom is cowardice pure and simple. It is weakness and an insult to those who have fought to protect against what these useful fools would readily welcome!---BULLSHIT

This is why I am calling bullshit on this new American culture. Fuck it. It is going to destroy us. A nation divided cannot survive. This country, this incredible nation, founded on freedom, and opportunity, on the hope of a better life and equality, is going to self-destruct, and we will be the ones welcoming the destruction.

The sad reality is that we are giving the fringes the power to divide us. The left and the right extremes are the ones that are controlling opinion. The fringe voices are the loudest. They sing songs of hate, destruction and victory at all costs. Fuck them. The left, the right, same fucking voices. Same basic words. Optimistically I hope and assume that the majority of the country rejects both sides. Yet at some point, if things continue down this infected road, we will have to make a decision. We will have to choose a side. Like a prisoner, who might not identify with a group yet they are forced to associate with that group for protection. I just equated the middle with being a prisoner. Because the fringe right and left are the powerful gangs. They are the minority but their voices are loudest, filled with hate for anyone who differs in opinion, filled with a destructive desire to destroy their enemy and seize power. This is bullshit. We are allowing a great country to be destroyed. We need to take the country back. Through words, ideas, actions, support and the willingness to fight against both of these destructive forces. We outnumber them. We cannot surrender this fight or our country will be lost.

Our culture has become toxic. We lack a unifying force. Culture has always acted like an invisible hand, guiding our behavior, our values, our customs our hopes and dreams. Yet we have perverted our culture, lost sight of what is important. America, the nation, cannot survive without a unifying culture that passionately opposes both extremes. America was supposed to be the great melting pot. Yet this has become a failed experiment. It has created a fractured culture, divisive dogmas, ideologies and doctrine that expects 100% loyalty. If anyone needs proof of that, look at how anyone was attacked after Trump’s election simply for saying, “Let’s give him a chance”. Bullshit!

Any two people can exist in harmony. I have friends who are far right, far left, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian, devout and atheist. We can all live in harmony as one people, unfortunately, when the toxic aspects of culture and ideology get in the way, when tensions rise, we are pulled apart and begin focusing on our differences rather than similarities. We seek to prove our way is right and their way is wrong.

Fuck this, fuck all of it. Fuck the Alt-Right, Fuck Antifa, Fuck Hollywood Hypocrites, Fuck Fox News, Fuck MSNBC, and Fuck the divisive Politicians who are tearing the country apart. It is all bullshit and we need to force the change now, or the change will be forced on us through violence in the future. And that is total bullshit!

Finally done processing the Charlottesville fallout...

Haven’t been on Tumblr for years; never had a consistent posting schedule; never had any kind of readership. Whatever: there are not words to express how exhausted I am of President Trump. Here’s what i have to say to anyone out there who’s continuing to defend him in the wake of the controversy:

Yes, the media is focusing quite a bit more on the White House's response to Charlottesville than on the events themselves. For a newspaper to denounce this violence--which all I've read have done--takes only a few paragraphs. For a newspaper to elucidate, however, the infinite and unquantifiably significant reasons that President Trump's strategy in managing this entire scenario was disastrous, may take thousands of words. It'll certainly take me a few here.

These self-proclaimed (let me repeat: SELF. PROCLAIMED) violent white nationalists, white supremacists, and Nazis are compulsively evil, pathologically anti-humanitarian scourges on all that is good. These bacterially-comprised facsimiles of human beings would sooner call for an accomplished black or Jewish man to literally burn than for a white man to be punished for carrying that scene out himself. They are deceivers, dividers--infinitesimal husks of Homo sapiens that employ gold medal-quality mental gymnastics and raw deception to justify the mindless hatred that feeds their sense of power. 

These are people who gleefully reminisce of an era when black men were castrated for merely expressing interest in white women--who invoke the images of that era with torches and robes and endeavor to bring it to life at their own expense. The descendants of the KKK and the Nazis, with their "neo" prefixes and their clever, covert monikers, whose birthright is a black hole where a soul should be. Dear reader, I presume you like to think of yourself as a "decent person." Even if you are politically conservative, or stand for the protection of Confederate monuments, could you truthfully walk by the sides of people who would likely have ended your life at that very moment if your skin were darker? 

I'll say it plainly: any person who willfully walked alongside these Whatever-Name-You-Wants last night, whatever their views of relationship with that ideology, has committed a grave, symbolic sin against the spirit of humanity itself. For to be in the presence of evil and make no attempt to quell it, to even divest yourself from it, is as heinous as full participation. I cannot imagine a world in which someone who joined in camaraderie with bloodthirsty bigots could the next day wake up with the honest expectation of being called "decent." 

And who but the President of this great nation, a symbol of uncompromising morality across the world, an example for our children to follow and for our allies to emulate, decided to call them so? Who but the First Citizen of this country chose to proclaim, with vigor and vitriol in his veins, that these people and those who opposed them were equal in blame?

That exact phrase has been repeated a dozen times in the media, and I expect you're weary of it, as I am. But I defy you to tell me that the question does not raise the most uncomfortable of answers and images. I was not quiet, during President Trump's campaign, about my best assessment of his character based on what information was available. In the months following the election, I've done my best to give him the fair chance I would hope for from anyone that doubted me, and so have been largely silent. 

But I've run out of incredulity, and he's run out of chances. Throughout the campaign, I called Trump a bigot, a racist, a loose-lipped fool, tactless, uninformed, and about a thousand other names. I wanted dearly to feel compelled, at the end of four years, to apologize for that characterization. Perhaps one day I will, but in the meantime, our President has given me every reason to maintain it.

This is a man who fundamentally misunderstands proper behavior, discernment, and the difference between right and wrong. He is a disgrace to this nation, to justice, and to world history, and one day will be properly recognized as such. Trump's atmosphere promoted the formation, yesterday and today, of the clouds that feed these septic pools. How long until were done swimming?

One of the essential elements of Communism - as can be readily seen in leftist rhetoric here in the US, even - is that they are right. Period end, full stop. They stand for Justice For the Oppressed, so anyone who opposes them is categorically evil. III So where do you put conservatism/right/alt-right then? Because I don't feel like"we're not 100% correct, the other guy might have a point" bipartisanship hasn't really been your message this whole time.

That’s because there’s no “bipartisanship” at play, but tripartisanship these days.When I say leftist, I mean something very, very different than liberal. 

A liberal is someone who innately believes in the American credo, as described by the Declaration of Independence and enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These are the people who fought for Civil Rights in the 60s, the people who put an end to the horrendous working conditions in factories in the 30s; the muckrakers, the original Progressives. The people you learned so much about in your American History course. They argue for higher taxes, more social programs, stricter gun control - but in the end they only differ from conservatives on nuts and bolts issues; about the best way to realize our goals as a society and nation - not what those goals should be. During the Civil War, soldiers from both armies would trade with each other in no-mans-land between the lines, and then fight brutally and to the death the next morning for their cause. When Union soldiers started celebrating wildly after the Confederate surrender, General Grant ordered them to stop rejoicing at their downfall, because “the rebels are our countrymen again.” And there was absolutely bitterness and hate deep and profound enough that it lingers to this day, but he was right, in the end - they were our countrymen again and would feast with us, starve with us, and bleed in the trenches with us forever after - we were still all Americans, and fundamentally, in our hearts, we agreed on the same things - the principles of western liberal democracy. 

A leftist is something entirely different - the adherents of a completely different ideology that first began with Rousseau, erupted with the sordid violence and mayhem of the French Revolution and would finally find its most enduring elucidation in the form of Marxist ideology. There is no common root whatsoever between this ideology and the fundamental principles of western liberalism. This is the ideology that deposed and beheaded Louis XVI, that overthrew the Romanov Czars and murdered them, that took and starved China under Mao, that swept Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba. As evidenced by its roots, it’s an ideology based on and around the concept of violent revolution to overthrow capitalism. Whereas western liberalism’s political theory is primarily concerned with exploring the legitimacy of rulership - who rules, to what ends, and by what right - Marxist ideology has always, from the moment of its inception, been a reaction and denouncement of existing capitalist systems. Consider: Plato’s arguments in The Republic center around a theoretical polis, a “city on a hill,” which he uses to explore the nature of man as relates to the kind of government that could best rule them. John Stewart Mill’s On Liberty opens as such:  

The subject of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will, so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical Necessity; but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.

In the work from which all leftism traces its roots, The Social Contract, Rousseau (after brief introduction) declares his subject with lines that have become famous:

MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.

Two years before writing that, Rousseau wrote an essay titled Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, in which he argued that man is naturally good, and the social institutions of science and art were social institutions that made man wicked. In his own words: 

So long as government and law provide for the security and well-being of men in their common life,the arts, literature and the sciences, less despotic though perhaps more powerful, fling garlands offlowers over the chains which weigh them down. They stifle in men’s breasts that sense of originalliberty, for which they seem to have been born; cause them to love their own slavery, and so makeof them what is called a civilised people....   

Before art had moulded our behaviour, and taught our passions to speak an artificial language, ourmorals were rude but natural; and the different ways in which we behaved proclaimed at the firstglance the difference of our dispositions....

We no longer dare seem what we really are, but lie under a perpetual restraint; in the meantime theherd of men, which we call society, all act under the same circumstances exactly alike, unless veryparticular and powerful motives prevent them....

Such is the purity to which our morals have attained; this is the virtue we have made our own. Letthe arts and sciences claim the share they have had in this salutary work...

This is where the leftist obsession with studying society and its “constructs” as a system of oppression began. The left is still making these arguments today. He also attacked playwright and poets as degenerate and obscene, and blamed them for the fall of Rome: 

It was not till the days of Ennius and Terence that Rome, founded by a shepherd, and madeillustrious by peasants, began to degenerate. But after the appearance of an Ovid, a Catullus, aMartial, and the rest of those numerous obscene authors, whose very names are enough to putmodesty to the blush, Rome, once the shrine of virtue, became the theatre of vice, a scorn amongthe nations, and an object of derision even to barbarians. Thus the capital of the world at lengthsubmitted to the yoke of slavery it had imposed on others, and the very day of its fall was the eve ofthat on which it conferred on one of its citizens the title of Arbiter of Good Taste.

He’d be right at home on Feminist Frequency if he were alive today, calling out all that problematic media. 

The classical western liberals were concerned with exploring theoretical truth, whereas Rousseau and all who followed in his footsteps were primarily concerned with attacking their own extant society - establishing the legitimacy of their envisioned society was primarily done to delegitimize the society they so detested. This revolutionary bent born of foregone-conclusion reasoning might’ve amounted to nothing, but for the collectivist nature of his conceived social contract: 

Filtering out the inessentials, we’ll find that the socialcompact comes down to this:’Each of us puts his person and all his power incommon under the supreme direction of the generalwill, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive eachmember as an indivisible part of the whole.’

This is diametrically opposed to Western liberalism, which takes as fundamental truth the sanctity of each individual’s freedom, and struggles to reconcile individual freedom with the restrictions and co-operation required to operate in society. Rousseau rejects the individual entirely - his individual will isn’t even mentioned, and his “person and all his power” are at the complete command of the general will. Consider this passage: 

To protect the social compact from being a mere emptyformula, therefore, it silently includes the undertaking thatanyone who refuses to obey the general will is to be compelledto do so by the whole body. This single item in the compactcan give power to all the other items. It means nothing lessthan that each individual will be forced to be free. ·It’sobvious how forcing comes into this, but. . . to be free? Yes·,because this is the condition which, by giving each citizento his country, secures him against all personal dependence,

Personal freedom and will simply do not exist under Rousseau's vision. At all. When combined with revolutionary fervor born of anti-establishment grievances, you can understand how this philosophy powered the French and Russian revolutions. 

This, my dear Anon, is the source of the statement you quoted from my last post. Fundamental to their philosophy - dating back to its very inception - are the concepts of an unjust and oppressive state and the supreme righteousness of the general will. That they lack the majority support of the populace matters not, for even Rousseau argued - and I quote - “Individualsmust be made to bring their wills into line with their reason;the populace must be taught to know what it wills.” He even envisioned a “great Legislator,” some supremely talented demagogue who would be capable of this great task of telling the populace what they actually will. Plato also made this argument with his wise “philosopher-kings,” but Plato was more honest - with the “myth of the metals” allegory he openly acknowledged that he was saying men are unequal and many not capable of governing themselves properly, and that overt claims of the equality of man were a noble lie that was needed to keep the peace, keep the fools happy and content. Plato’s student, Aristotle, criticized that idea as the trash it was, and Western liberalism would side with him and never look back. 

This is why domestic terrorist groups like antifa justify the silencing of people they don’t like via violence - it’s perfectly in line with their philosophy. They represent the General Will, and anyone who doesn’t fall in line with it must be “forced to be free.” This is the root of the left-wing, Rousseauain/Marxist philosophy that first gained real power in America in 1969, on college campuses, and has been growing ever since. This is the source of the increasingly steep and wide partisan divide in American politics. Leftist ideology is fundamentally at odds with the principles and philosophy that America’s entire government, legal system and Constitution was based on - and by extension, fundamentally incompatible with anyone who believes in those basic precepts. The blue-collar union Democrats who voted for Reagan and then voted for Trump believe in those American principles, for example. Anyone who argues for the importance of a free press, freedom of speech and the individual rights of people are not, at their very roots, leftists. These people, they might have a point - as the union people did. They applied some of Marx’s critiques in the particulars, but they reconciled them with their own liberal philosophies. 

If leftists do have a point, they do not bother to argue them in good faith - because their own philosophy absolves them of the need for that. How liberals can tolerate people who are so tyrannical in fundamental philosophy (and increasingly in actual practice,) people who reject the most basic precepts that liberals champion, I cannot fathom. 

I talk about them because I want Democrats who are liberals - you - to recognize the problem. 

the lesbophobia thing

Lesbophobia is real. It's the prejudice, bigotry, and oppression that exists at the intersection of homophobia and misogyny. Let me say it again: Lesbophobia is real. Hate for lesbians is real.

However, it is essential to acknowledge and understand that the term lesbophobia has been co-opted by a loud and growing contingent of LGBTQ women in communities that share troubling ties and ideology with factions that exist inside the alt-right movement — worse, the dangerous dogma that's attaching itself to word the lesbophobia has found a new home at AfterEllen.

I first encountered the word lesbophobia in response to the post I wrote called Queer Women Take Over The 2016 Emmys. Her Story got a revolutionary nod for Outstanding Short Form. Kate McKinnon took home a trophy for Saturday Night Live. Sarah Paulson won for The People vs. O.J. Simpson. And Jill Soloway scored another victory for Transparent. On social media there was a small outcry that I hadn't chosen the headline "Lesbians Take Over the 2016 Emmys," despite the fact that Kate McKinnon was the only winner who explicitly identifies as a lesbian. (In fact, Sarah Paulson is on record saying, "I refuse to give any kind of label just to satisfy what people need.") The reasons the handful of dissenters gave for my decision to call the Emmys queer was that I am a lesbophobe, an espouser and executor of lesbophobia.

To be very honest with you, I shrugged it off. The most unwinnable battle we have at Autostraddle is labeling LGBTQ people in a way that satisfies everyone. It's such a constant struggle, we laid out an explanation about labels in our official comment policy. Recently on a Pop Culture Fix, I wrote about the new queer characters coming to The Good Wife spin-off. One of them will be a lesbian, according to the show's writers; the other's sexuality has not been labeled. So, I said, "The Good Wife spin-off will prominently feature two lesbian, bisexual, gay, homosexual, or otherwise queer-identified women." Just to cover all my bases because it was almost Christmas and I was tired and I didn't want to have to argue about labels. And yet, the cries of lesbophobia came in again. I got a couple of emails, a dozen or so tweets. Essentially: "Lesbian is not a dirty word! Saying queer is lesbophobic!"

So, on December 26, I tweeted something I think is a true, fair, and accurate analogy:

Yelling "lesbophobia!" when someone says "queer" is like yelling "war on Christmas!" when someone says "happy holidays." Come on, y'all.

A couple of days later, AfterEllen's official Twitter tweeted at me and said: "@theheatherhogan oh, agreed. It's like yelling "biphobia!" and "transphobia!" when someone says lesbian."

To which beloved Autostraddle cartoonist Dickens replied:

"AfterEllen is three weeks shy of transforming their website into an online support group for victims of wyt lesbian genocide. This is honestly the most ridiculously entitled white lesbian coated petrified bullshit I have seen in a long time. And if you don't think white supremacy has reached out its dirty little fingers and touched a few groups of marginalized white folks, well. Keep an eye on their feed here and there. Keep an eye on their former writers. They aren't just trying to Make Lesbianism Great Again… They are asserting their strength. They are erasing the visibility of the defectors. They are sliding their salty little asses into spaces and feeds where they must know they are clearly not wanted or cared for. I was never a fan of AE but this new image they're building for themselves is a little too Nazi-adjacent for my galaxy Blaaaack aaaass."

Dickens was, of course, correct. And her point was proven once again the very next day when an article blasted out to the 125,000 followers of AfterEllen's official, verified Twitter account cried: “Lesbian Spaces Are Still Needed, No Matter What the Queer Movement Says". It suggests that trans women and bisexual women's desire to be included in queer women's spaces is to blame for the decline of lesbian-specific spaces, which lesbians need to stay safe from trans and bisexual women.

That kind of rallying cry feels very much like the "Save Our White Neighborhoods" rallying cry of the alt-right, so I went on a deeper dive to try to find the origins of what I called "the lesbophobia movement" on Twitter. And what I found was more horrifying than I ever imagined.

A few weeks ago AfterEllen — which everyone presumed dead after the company that owns it effectively fired everyone, including longtime editor in chief Trish Bendix — announced it had acquired a new editor named Memoree Joelle. In October, Joelle, tweeted a Change.org petition that she'd signed called Take the L Out of LGBT. The petition is a direct response to a previously failed petition that called for GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign, HuffPo Voices, The Advocate, etc. to Drop The T from LGBT. The most popular supporter of the petition is a guy you might know called Milo Yiannopoulos. He signed it, tweeted about it, and dedicated 3,000 words to it in a post on Breitbart. Thanks to Milo's urging, Matthew Hopkins, one of the main perpetrators of Gamergate, wrote a post called "Why #GamerGate Should Help the ‘Drop the T’ Campaign" on his personal blog. Hopkins called it "one of the most politically important campaigns of our generation."

In addition to signing and tweeting about the petition, Joelle commented her approval. When former AfterEllen writer Elaine Atwell brought Joelle's support of the petition to light, Joelle's comments disappeared from the petition, and so did Elaine's byline from the hundreds of articles she wrote over the last five years at AfterEllen.

The comments on the Change.org petition mention lesbophobia multiple times and equate it with trans activism, as do the subreddits that discussed Joelle's contribution to the petition. "Part of lesbophobia is hating us for our same-sex attraction, but another very big part of it is hating us for our rejection of men," one user wrote on /r/GenderCritical/. (Trans women are almost always referred to as men on this particular subreddit.) Another Redditor on /r/actuallesbians decried the "male entitlement and lesbophobia" of protesting the petition. "The moment we talk about your rape culture or your male violence we're 'transphobic' or 'biphobic.'" (The men in this comment are actually trans women and "rape culture" refers to the constantly espoused idea in TERF communities that trans women are male predators.) The lesbophobia tag on the blog GenderTrender is a deeply disturbing trip down an anti-trans rabbit hole. The lesbophobia tag on the website 4th Wave Now is horrifying; it equates allowing trans kids/teens to come out and live openly as their true gender with child abuse, ideas that are — again — shared with Breitbart and Milo Yiannopoulos. Reddit and Tumblr are absolutely flush with lesbians using the word "lesbophobia" to back up the ideas presented in these "Drop the T"/"The L Is Leaving" petitions.

These spaces that use the word "lesbophobia" to attack trans and bi women or people who use the word queer share more than than an ideology with Breitbart. You'll find them saying things like "trans women want to colonize the lesbian community." You'll find them using the phrase "SJW" (meaning Social Justice Warrior), a pejorative term coined by the Men's Rights Activist movement. And you'll find a lot of talk about how the correct "biology" is the thing that allows people access to the protections of the majority. And lots and lots and lots and lots of just truly sickening propaganda leveled at trans and bi women. It's very much about creating an in-group and scapegoating an out-group through tried and true tactics that have been — I'm sorry — utilized by Fox News and the alt-right for years.

I wrote about these things on Twitter, and you can read Dickens further unpacking them here and here. (You should read that last thread before you jump in here and call her "my black friend.")

Look, we didn't just wake up one day with an openly racist, openly sexist, openly xenophobic, openly ableist, openly anti-semitic president in the White House, appointing the leader of the most dangerous white supremacist website in history to his top advisor position. We watched blatant and unabashed white supremacist language and ideas slowly take over the movement from the inside. We watched the most powerful scapegoat the most vulnerable. We watched Fox News make heroes out of the white men who murdered unarmed black children and terrify people with their whole War on Christmas bullshit and equate all Muslims with terrorists. A Nazi didn't walk into the West Wing and have a seat; the slow creep of white supremacy laid the path for him.

Vox did a fascinating interview with former conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes earlier this year. He quit over Trump. But the whole interview is him agonizing about how, to him, the GOP had always been about fiscal conservatism and states rights and he believed in that ideological purity so deeply that he fooled himself into believing that's what the GOP was about to everybody, despite the fact that he saw the white supremacy and fascism slowly gaining power and momentum until it took over.

To realize, first of all, that you’re part of a movement that was not the movement you thought it was, that you’re aligned with people that you didn’t really understand you’re aligned with, and to realize that everything that you thought about the conservative intellectual infrastructure was really piecrust thin. You thought you had this big principled movement and then suddenly along comes Donald Trump and you realize that it was just was just the pastry on top. So I think disorienting is a great term. Disillusioning is not too strong either.

To me, what we're talking about with lesbophobia is a similar thing. Is lesbophobia a term some lesbians have rallied around to protest the prejudice and bigotry that exist at the intersection of homophobia and misogyny? Yes, of course. Absolutely. HOWEVER. I had to go searching for people using the word lesbophobia like that because my entire experience with the way the word kept popping up in my timeline and in my comments and in the comments sections of other websites was to decry the use of the word queer and to espouse anti-trans and anti-bi ideology. And that includes every single person who landed in my mentions on Twitter when I started talking about this. I did not click on a single profile without finding anti-trans, anti-bi language; or ask a single person if they believe trans women are women and have them say yes.

If you are a woman who is using the word lesbophobia to NOT do those things, and you're more angry at me for pointing out that it's happening than you are at anti-trans/anti-bi people who have hijacked its meaning, I ... I truly don't understand. What's happening at AfterEllen is terrifying me. Maybe the website is technically dead, but it still has clout and power and it's using it to push some really dangerous ideas about lesbian exclusivity, and those ideas are shared by a very loud group of people who use the word "lesbophobia" on their blogs, social media, Reddit, etc. to vilify the people (like me) who stand against them.

I don't want to cause anyone pain. I don't want to make anyone feel unsafe or unloved or unaccepted. I DO NOT BELIEVE LESBIANS ARE NAZIS. I AM A LESBIAN. If you truly think that's what I was saying when I unpacked these ideas on Twitter, I'm sorry. It was not my intention.

I do think, however, that it's imperative for you to open your eyes to how the word lesbophobia is being used to persecute and oppress trans and bi women in very vocal and influential spaces that have direct ties in ideology and language with the alt-right.

Shooting the Messenger, Part 2: Hunting Grounds

There are entire websites devoted to blaming the media for anything and anything, and furthermore, with an extremely partisan slant. These websites are given names that make them appear neutral and that make them appear to be working for a noble cause: names such as “Accuracy in Media”, “Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting”, “Media Matters”, and “NewsBusters”. (Well, maybe not that last one, but you get the point.) Let’s investigate them one by one and see whether they hold any merit.

First up: Accuracy in Media.

“Accuracy In Media is a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage.” OK, seems pretty neutral. Let’s go to the front page.

OK, we’re obviously looking at a conservative site here. Let’s go to the first article and see what “scandals” they’re referring to. They specify the Clinton email scandal, which received plenty of coverage in the media, and the Laureate Education “scandal”, which has been proven false by The Fact Checker. Two others mention Obama, who isn’t the media, and another mentions Megyn Kelly’s move to NBC. What’s their implication? That Megyn Kelly is a closet liberal? One is someone saying the media is biased, which is hardly evidence the media is biased. Another talks about supposed media bias in the election in general. 

Trump’s “false assertions” have generally been fairly minor and petty—or exaggerated by the media. For example, the linked Washington Post article claims that “anyone could find that the majority of Mexican immigrants are not, in fact, criminals and rapists.” But as James Simpson exposed in a special report for Accuracy in Media, illegal immigrants are committing disproportionately large numbers of crimes, including homicide and rape.

Still not a majority. It was Trump doing the exaggerations. And linked report tracks arrests, not convictions. A greater number of arrests could simply mean that police profile illegal immigrants. And while (according to PolitiFact) 69% of Trump’s tracked statements were lies, only 26% of Clinton’s tracked statements were lies. NEXT!

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information. Uniquely, FAIR works with both activists and journalists. We maintain a regular dialogue with reporters at news outlets across the country, providing constructive critiques when called for and applauding exceptional, hard-hitting journalism. We also encourage the public to contact media with their concerns, to become media activists rather than passive consumers of news.

censorship

“Come and see the bias inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”

As a progressive group

At least they admit their bias, unlike AIM. Doesn’t excuse their less-than-reputable activities which I shall chronicle shortly.

We also encourage the public to contact media with their concerns

“Hey everyone! Harass the media with calls! What could possibly go wrong?”

On the front page:

WaPo, Organ of Extreme Center, Calls MLK ‘True Conservative’

The article does not even bother to specify what “extreme center” the Washington Post is supposedly an “organ” of, so we can outright dismiss that claim.

The article states that WaPo “lumped [MLK] in the same ideological category as William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater.” Giving Barry Goldwater as an example of the average conservative shows you just how skewed these people’s mindsets are. Additionally, the article FAIR is criticizing is an editorial, showing FAIR’s desperation at the lack of actual news articles with a pro-conservative bias.

Another article praising an NYT editorial critical of Jeff Sessions frequently slams the “corporate media” for treating him too lightly while failing to provide any evidence or examples. The article on the dossier fails to note any media bias and appears to be pure liberal advocacy. Yet another article talks of “New McCarthyism”, but makes no mention of media bias.

Another article is entitled “In Absence of Evidence, Media Evoke ISIS in Jerusalem Attack.” Three of the five articles mentioned simply quote Netanyahu and make no allegations of their own; another calls the attack “ISIS-like”, which it was. The CNN chyron pictured states “ISIS suspect” - simply repeating the (true) statement that the attacker was suspected to be a member of ISIS by some. The only news source that jumped the gun (no pun intended) was The Daily Beast, which, as a liberal publication, would have no motive of pleasing conservatives.

The lone two good articles are the article about Fox News’s pro-Trump bias and a repudiation of the Washington Post’s “fact-check” of Assange’s claims that the source of WikiLeaks emails damaging to Hillary Clinton was not Russian, an indicator of liberal bias on the Washington Post’s behalf (in that one article).

Let’s move on to Media Matters.

About Us Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

“Misinformation,” eh? You’re not fooling anyone with that wording.

The cover story, so to speak, talks about an adviser violating... the Logan Act. Looking up the Logan Act, I find the text of what would constitute an incriminating act.

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

OK, let’s read the story now.

The meat of the article is:

Neither reporter asked Trump about reports that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had spoken with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. about Russian sanctions prior to Trump’s inauguration, which Trump aides had previously denied.

This raises questions such as “how far prior?” Looking at the original NYT story, the conduct occurred over Christmas week - a period when Trump was indeed in an official governmental office, the Office of the President-Elect, and thus Flynn was working in an official article. But of course, Media Matters left out this crucial detail in their article. Because facts don’t matter when you have an agenda to push. The reason the outlets are ignoring this story is because it can be decimated in all of two minutes.

One other article is irrelevant to media bias - a legal scholar thinking “Trump is a threat to democracy”. Another discusses Rush Limbaugh’s possible inclusion on a climate change panel. Disturbing, but irrelevant to media bias. Another article is titled “Most morning shows ignore Trump adviser’s possibly illegal communications with Russia.” I click on it expecting to see a bombshell. I get... another article about Flynn’s supposed violation of the Logan Act, and whining about how the mainstream media isn’t gullible enough to fall for this fairy tale.

Another article is talking about how a columnist said something objectionable in an editorial. Editorials are, of course, going to be biased - and cannot be relied upon for facts. I thought it was media bias we were looking for, not allegedly unhinged editorials.

Speaking of being unhinged, another article describes Chris Matthews being “unhinged” in a defense of Trump’s travel ban. Watching the video shows... not Matthews being unhinged. Not even Matthews defending the ban. Matthews simply states the courts should not be declaring it in violation of law/the Constitution - a view with which I admittedly disagree, but far from the one Media Matters blared with their clickbait headline. 

About the only good article on this website is one about Trump’s administration gaslighting everyone.

Now to the next one...

NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center.

Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

Well, they pretty much state their position upfront.

Let’s take a closer look.

We have a story declaring that someone on ABC thinks people will die because the ACA will be repealed. And apparently she is “go[ing] off the rails” about it. I have to give them points on this one, because the person talking before her was actually talking about the need to focus MORE on replacement.

Another story talks about a CNN panel expressing concern about Trump’s muted response to a North Korean missile launch - which is indeed concerning! The Obama administration condemned North Korea every tine they fired a missile, so why not the Trump administration? Yet NewsBusters laughs it off with no evidence to support its dismissal whatsover.

Another article talks about the media blaming others for everything, while it blames the media for everything.

Another story talks about Slate’s admittedly silly reporting that compares Trump to Hitler. Admittedly, Slate can be unhinged sometimes. But this website seems to be tarnished on the whole - just like the other three.

Dave Chappelle and the Woke Conscience

  Dave Chappelle’s hilarious new Netflix special, Sticks & Stones, confirms him as this generation’s most famous and daring comic in America. He’s also therefore the most strangely positioned—a black liberal who has dedicated his career to mocking the piety of the wealthy white liberals who consider themselves arbiters of taste in popular culture.

This is the most important and obvious fact about Chappelle. He’s what Americans pride ourselves on, a rugged individualist, a man who doesn’t take his opinions either from mobs or elites. Why aren’t there more like him? Why don’t we call for more like him? Perhaps it’s because he’s too independent, famously willing to walk away from $50 million because he didn’t want his studio and audience to rule him. He’s what hardly any celebrity wants to be, since celebrity depends on flattering audiences, which requires conformism, following fashions—treating the latest moral prejudices as the eternal truths of revealed religion.

Of course, his business is comedy, not a morally enlightened debate, so expect vast, unquenchable resources of vulgarity in his work. But do not be deceived therefore that vulgarity is mindless or simply deleterious. Vulgarity is unavoidable in our pop culture, but Chappelle’s includes a strong moral-political argument, that vulgarity is truly closer to our nature than moral preening. His example suggests that people who try to make careers by stoking popular indignation are not as serious as the people who laugh at such pretensions.

Chappelle is not just talented or crafty—he is also an intelligent observer of America. As such, we have much to learn from him, even though he is a liberal primarily addressing liberals. And what else could he do? He only sees other Americans at a distance that precludes the conversation implicit in comedy. We live ever more politically segregated lives and political controversy takes over more and more topics, so it’s hard to give each other a hearing. Comedy now is one of the rare chances we have to learn about each other.

This, of course, only applies to comics who, like Chappelle, are liberal critics of liberalism—they’re not conservatives nor even friendly to conservatism, but they can help conservatives see the good and bad in liberalism. He addresses himself, unasked, to the opinions that have become dominant in public discourse. His purpose is to correct the excesses of an increasingly hysterical liberalism and in this he seems to me much more competent and serious than most intellectuals. He talks about abortion, LGBT, and race hoaxes in ways meant to make liberals laugh, but primarily at themselves, which is now very rare.

He points out that arguing for abortion rights on the ground of individualism would lead to a dissolution of every woman’s claims on the property of any man: To “my body, my choice” answers “my money, my choice.” But he goes beyond that to suggest the cruelty of such debates, with a terrible phrase only comics would dare utter in public: If you ladies can kill the child, the least I can do is abandon him. His audience, needless to say, is less than enthusiastic at this point, and he says: And if I’m wrong on this, maybe we’re wrong on this. . .

Then, he deals with the most fanatically held opinion among liberals just now, which deals with sexual identity. The body includes a fundamental tension between what is natural and what is chosen, both tied up in strange ways with chance. Liberal piety about individualism and identity here reaches its crisis, since it extols both the spontaneously occurring—“born that way”—and the artificially chosen—surgery. Desire turns out to be complicated and often turns one against oneself.

Chappelle claims he has a right to laugh about these things, because no amount of moralism can hide the absurdity of the possibility of being born in the wrong body, a necessary implication of the liberal belief in self-determination. This should lead not to activism, but reflection on man’s cosmic predicament—how can it be that our only experience of being human can be so self-contradictory? But that would not help the ideology of individual liberation, so it’s not part of our public discourse. More, his comedy points out that liberalism, once dogmatically in favor of nature as a standard for judging human equality, now dogmatically imposes dubious, rapidly-changing conventions, enforced by hysteria.

Instead of honoring these conventions, Chappelle looks behind them to conflicts between the various parts of what he calls the “alphabet people”—the LGBT coalition—where he detects any number of prejudices impolite to mention. Prejudices are delightful because they are impolite or even immoral—they give us insight into how other people think. This by itself further reminds us that prejudices are part of what spontaneously occurs in our lives and in our minds, the mark of individuality in every case where liberals don’t get hysterical.

His point here and throughout his attack on wokeness seems to be, hysteria is now the dominant mood of moral discourse precisely because liberals sense they are caught in a contradiction on the question of individuality. Can people be trusted to spontaneously conform to Progressive moral imperatives, especially when these change? Or must they be brow-beaten into compliance? Progress seems to now find it necessary to prefer the artificial or conventional to the spontaneous or natural. More, since previous, hippie notions of liberation were wedded to spontaneity and they failed to make us happy, now liberation is supposed to come by ruthlessly enforced conventions. These may also fail to make us happy, but they’d give us the satisfaction of punishing people. Wokeness may be irrational, but certainly delivers harsh, swift justice.

This finally brings us to the most ridiculous example Chappelle gives, one ripped from recent headlines, the race hoax spread by actor Jussie Smollett with great support in the media and among liberal elites more broadly. Indeed, with legal impunity, it seems. Chappelle says, black people were mostly silent about this, as a sign of support—they knew it was a lie. His joke is: just think of this guy as French, pronounce his name differently, get some distance from the matter—can you still in all honesty pretend this ever made sense?

This is the problem with Progress by the path of artificiality—conmen abound and some can now boast the moral sanction of whatever public authorities our culture has left. It’s not an accident that the more censorious and narrow-minded online mobs get—the more driven by self-righteous indignation—the more gullible we’re all supposed to be, and deferential. Noble-sounding ideals of justice and equality become travesties and we’re all supposed to swallow it.

The Smollett case seems like a mere accident of the news cycle. But it brings out an essential problem for comedy. If artificial conventions can be imposed on public opinion, how then will a comedian be allowed to make fun of the crazy things we say and do without noticing it? If this becomes unthinkable, how could comedy move us back to a more natural, reasonable attitude? Comedy is art, but it opposes the artificiality of moralism, precisely because comedy proceeds as though by chance, from neglected or disregarded details to fundamental problems. We are neither as wise nor as powerful nor as pure as Progress assumes—but nor are we as blind to the unexpected or insightful aspects of our existence as it requires us to be. Comedy shows we could always notice something publicly neglected which turns out to reveal something of great importance.

The element of surprise in comedy—consider how few jokes are funny the second or tenth time you hear them, unlike favorite songs you’ll listen to all your life—ultimately depends on things we don’t notice because we’d be ashamed if we did. The comedian needs tolerance, the willingness of people to listen, even if he buys it at the price of being laughed at, held in contempt, and disregarded as a thinker or political teacher.

That we’re surprised at ourselves, when the comedian raises a mirror to us by aping us, shows something like innocence—for once, we’re not protesting our innocence, respectability, and authority, or the right not to be made fools of. This is the key to the show, which accordingly opens with open mockery of woke internet mobs who are then identified with the Netflix audience. So we should listen to the last man in America allowed to say such things.

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.5"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, "script", "facebook-jssdk"));

The post Dave Chappelle and the Woke Conscience appeared first on NEWS - EVENTS - LEGAL.

source https://dangkynhanhieusanpham.com/dave-chappelle-and-the-woke-conscience/