Thursday, April 30, 2015

When SJWs Show Their True Colors

So what happens when SJWs get furious about a weight loss/protein supplement ad that suggests maybe some people don't have 'beach body ready' physiques? They complain, and sign petitions, demanding the ad be withdrawn while talking about how sexist and body-shaming it is.

Alright. Annoying perhaps, insofar as I disagree with them, but such is life.

Now, what happens when the CEO of the company tells them to get bent and rejects their arguments altogether - and in public - to the celebration and support of purchasers?

That's simple.

The government steps in and censors their ad.

To the delight of said SJWs.

All that bullshit about 'we just want to criticize, is that so wrong?' that they mouth off about now and then is exactly that: bullshit. Their interest in criticizing is predicated on getting results. Not 'the possibility of results', but immediate results. If that doesn't work, they have very little trouble flat out censoring you if it's within their power.

And, it turns out - it often is.

Which is exactly why they have to be resisted at all levels. These are not people you can negotiate with. They do not live and let live. They do not agree to disagree - unless they are pinned, helpless, and are looking desperately for any way out so they can scurry away to immediately plot their revenge.

A lack of homosexual representation

It's impressive how every time something like this happens, the word 'homosexual' appears nowhere in the article.

I mean that. Literally impressive. Like how the Church sex scandal gets mentioned repeatedly, but it manages to be done without 'gay' or 'homosexual' ever coming up. Right up there with the carefully excised reference to race in riot situations, but man, if a white man is accused of targeting a black person with violence, it's a whole other story. Then those races are front and center - and if the alleged assailant turns out to be half-hispanic, hispanics become white upon the instant.

Edit: The article does say that the man 'said he was gay' to the cop. It's buried down in the article, it's only mentioned in the context of 'he said he was gay', and it's otherwise excised from the article.

Another example.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Apparently, we're supposed to call thugs "niggers" now

Via Hot Air.

Right now I'm seeing people working overtime trying to build sympathy for the thugs in Baltimore, on the grounds that this sort of lashing out is to be expected among the poor and downtrodden, it's not their fault, this is all part of the way people try to register their grievances with a system they object to. And if you call them thugs? Then you may as well just call them niggers.

Of course you get the move here. It's supposed to make criticisms of rioters toxic - at least this particular type of rioters - so when flames are fanned and inevitably spew out of control, no one is criticized, and no one takes a political hit. So 'thug' will be seen as a code-word for 'nigger', no one will use it, and hopefully we'll just start calling these people 'disenfranchised youths speaking truth to power in the only way they know how'. Because only a horrible, evil wicked racist would ever use that word.

I suggest a different approach to consider: maybe it's time to just flat out call rioting, store-looting, building-burning thugs 'niggers', just as the councilman suggested.

Not 'N****rs'.

Not '******s'.

Niggers.

Let people gasp. Let them scream. Let them demand apologies, let them call it racism, let them say whatever they like.

And then let's call the looting, rioting thugs niggers again. Let's call the ones justifying and defending it the same thing, for that matter. And we can call the blacks who resist this sort of behavior, who condemn it, who say it cannot be justified 'good' and 'civilized'.

Because one thing has been made clear: the people involved here are shameless. We have hit the point where not even people quite literally robbing stores and setting them on fire, can be criticized openly because the people involved are protected by a shield of political correctness that is entirely out of control. And the reason that shield works is because people - left and right - are convinced that if they just adhere to the script, if they avoid all of the language one side insists is bad and wrong and utterly taboo (a script that only grows), then maybe we can have some 'dialogue' and 'come up with solutions'. Or, at the very least, not be labeled racist.

Of course, THAT always happens. No matter how closely people try to stick to the script anyway, hoping that if they follow the cues that they'll at least inoculate themselves against the nastier baggage.

Well, it doesn't work, and it doesn't help anyone. Not blacks - a good share of whom, I believe, are probably sick to death of these thugs and their enablers. And to the ones who aren't? To hell with them.

Let's make it clear that the excuses don't work anymore, that the rules have changed, and their there are expectations for behavior that everyone must abide by. Looting and setting fires can't be 'part of your culture's traditions of political action', or if it is, then expect the reactions of other cultures to be 'sending the national guard in immediately - not 'once things really get out of hand' but immediately', and everyone calling you by the Taboo Name Which You Thought No One Would Ever Say.

And maybe once the realization sinks in that the looting-apologetics won't work, and that the racial 'dialogue' now has another, loud voice that is not concerned first and foremost with not being called 'racist'... well, maybe then people will start to realize 'Oh shit, the sympathy's stopped. We better get our shit under control before this gets worse.'

I suspect one decade of that attitude will yield more results than the past few decades of the most idiotic crackers of each generation trying to appease others for their artificial guilt.

Rioters target, beat the hell out of journalists, take their stuff

Just in case you were looking for a silver lining to the riots.

By the way, here's a fun game: browse as many news reports about the Baltimore riots as you care to. Notice how many times the race of the rioters is omitted. Then watch video, and ask yourself if it's pertinent, or all that hard to figure out.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Baltimore is burning...

...but honestly, I'm having trouble caring too much.

Especially after hearing the mayor saying that she decided to allot the protesters some 'space to destroy'. Because, you know, people with legitimate grievances just now and then need a certain amount of real estate they can torch, rob and send up in flames. Totally reasonable, yeah?

So apparently the only problem here is that the protesters decided to negotiate and speak out about just how much space they get to destroy, and where that space may be. And really, isn't that what democracy is all about?

Monday, April 27, 2015

Explaining the straw that broke the camel's back

The moment I saw liberal Christians gleefully supporting the state fining and shutting down Christian businesses for not providing service to a same-sex wedding - the moment the Randal Rausers and company started to mock and belittle people who were being sued, whose businesses were being shut down by the state, fined into a oblivion for the crime of not wanting to take part in a service they find morally abhorrent... that's when I stopped giving liberal Christians the benefit of the doubt.

Now and then I've had Christians like this say, 'Look, so we disagree on some political topics. Can't we set aside our differences and focus on what we agree on? Don't we both worship the same God?' And really, my answer at this point is 'No' and 'No'. No to the first, because there is no 'setting aside of differences' when you're giddily mocking Christians losing their businesses because they don't want to play a role in a same-sex marriage, and this remains the case even if you tortuously rephrase the entire ordeal with the word 'equality' showing up repeatedly. And no, I can no longer say we worship the same God when it becomes all too clear that whatever God you're worshiping happens to result in priorities, "morality" and "ethics" nigh indiscernible from that of people who expressly and emphatically hate Christianity.

That was the line in the sand. Anyone who crossed it, I no longer have time for. And to be dead honest? Anyone who crossed it happily, and who later rethinks it all and claims they made a big mistake, I would mentally place in a box marked 'be civil, but never trust them'. Especially if they rethink it during a sustained cultural backlash, should one ever come.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Evidence of Being Objectively Disordered

So, the John Hopkins Student Government Association passed a non-binding resolution trying to keep Chik-fil-a off campus.

Chik-fil-a, by the way. Not Chick, like the story says as of this writing.

Anyway, you can guess why. Dan Cathy opposed gay marriage, so, uh... well:
The resolution said that allowing Chick-fil-A to open on campus would be a “microaggression” against members of the LGBT community, Washington’sWTOP-FM reported Friday.
Those microaggressions are big deals.

There's a lot of craziness going on with these people, but the one thing I want to know is - if the mere presence of a Chik-fil-a is a 'microaggression' against LGBT people, then what is a non-binding resolution like this to any person who believes same-sex marriage is wrong? An acceptable microaggression? An acceptable macroaggression?

Baffling modern thoughts about God

More than once I've run into people who are dead convinced that God and gods were originally conceived as entirely physical beings, and they only became 'non-physical' in reaction to modern scientific developments.

Literally, people who think that the Uncaused Cause or God as transcendent to the universe are very modern ideas which were hastily assembled after powerful telescopes were made and no one was able to find God in the sky or in the clouds.

Are people really that ill-informed? I know, I know - of course they are. But it's still surprising.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Strawman Chronicles - Crystal Jackson Edition

A: You are so offensive that it makes my skin crawl.
B: Yeah!
C: You know, I thought I was being nice here.
A: That's no excuse!
C: All I did was ask your boyfriend's name!
A: She's not my BOYfriend! How could you assume that!
B: I'm a woman!
C: Yes, you keep saying that, but...
A: Oh here we go.
C: He's a six and a half foot tall guy who looks like a bouncer.
A: SHE is wearing a DRESS.
B: Yeah!
C: I don't care if he's...
A: SHE
C: ..wearing a fucking ballgown and glass slippers, he's a big hulking guy who, might I add, quite  clearly still's packing heat.
B: I just haven't completed my transition. I have a woman -inside- of me.
C: What, did you eat one?
A & B in unison: How DARE you.
C: Ugh, it's too early for this shit. And what does it mean that you have a woman inside of you anyway? Seriously, what does that cash out to?
B: I'm more like a woman than a man.
C: Aside from the fact that you look like a man and also have a dick?
A: Let's go, there's no use talking to someone so ignorant.
C: I'm ignorant? Well then teach me. Explain that woman-inside-me thing.
B: I'm more like a woman than a man!
C: Okay. How?
B: I'm sensitive.
C: So are poets.
B: I'm delicate.
C: That doesn't sound particularly...
B: I'm caring, and trusting, and gentle.
A: She KNOWS what she is.
B: And I'm bad at math.
C: ...Heh, what?
A: W-what?
B: Terrible at it. My worst subject in school. Numbers and abstract thought gives me a headache.
C: ...Go on.
B: I'm bad with engineering. Machines more complicated than iPhones frustrate me.
A: That's not..
B: I'm petty and I hold grudges, but I'm passive aggressive. I gossip. When I'm called out for doing anything wrong, I cry and beg other people to help me.
A: WHAT ARE YOU SAYING.
C: Hold on, B's making a pretty good argument here!
A: WOMEN AREN'T LIKE THAT. THAT IS A MISOGYNISTIC HETERONORMATIVE...
C: I don't know, I've got a woman right here testifying otherwise.
B: It's not pretty, but it's true.
A: Well, *I* am a woman, and *I* don't think ANY of this is true.
C: ..How do I know you're a woman?
A: WHAT?
C: B feels like a woman. Women are real different from men, enough that uh... 'she' knows there's a woman inside and all that. Do you?
A: NO. There's... it's not like you can just BE a woman and... ...
C: Still waiting here.
A: Of course I'm a woman, just LOOK at me, I'm...
B: *glares threateningly*
A: I-I...
C: Heh, I'm gonna let you and the girl sort this out.
A and B: Which one of us is the...
C: I'll wait for you to tell me that.

Patience has its limits

If Victor's talking about who I think he is, then all I can say is - ha ha, finally. I thought I'd never see the day.

And see what I mean about his patience and politeness? That has to be the nicest possible way to tell two atheists (running this through the Crude interpreter) they are idiotic loudmouths.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

The Biggest Problem with Social Justice

...Is that it's so enthusiastically backed by people who seem entirely incapable of recognizing the possibility that they may do evil in its name.

"We're defending the downtrodden"? "We're defending those who have been unjustly persecuted"? Great talk. It's the same shit that was said by the Stalinists, the Maoists, the Nazis and just about every other monster to walk the earth.

"But we're different! They were evil - we're not!" Once again, great. They said the same thing about all their opponents too.

Of course, the cynic in me believes that at least the smarter SJWs know this, and simply don't care. This is just the latest viable path to power. If the path changes, so will their tone. Hell, so will their stated beliefs. The desire for power and control? That will generally be staying in place.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Crude Thoughts: Initial Edition

I always like reading when Brandon of Siris does his 'a whole bunch of fast undeveloped thoughts he's just putting out there' thing, so hey, I'll be doing that now and then. Call it one of my gimmicks, along with the Strawman fun.

So, on we go.

* The claim of 'you don't know what I think, don't act like you KNOW me' sounds like a good self-righteous response to probing criticism and questioning of one's motivations, but it's not a response which has aged well. Don't deploy this shit online when you're on an account with an extensive commenting history which lets anyone browse and reasonably piece together a good portion of your thoughts.

* With respect to Codgitator's rock and a dark place, my response is: the moment someone tells me that I have only two options, my natural instinct is to immediately check if they're right. I don't believe the only options for a faithful Catholic are suffering in silence or sedevacantism. To use an extreme example: the SSPX clearly doesn't believe that either. The fact is that the Pope is bound by past Popes and the deposit of faith, and the existence of shitty Popes - not saying that Francis is - is nothing new. This fast reply does no justice to Codg's long, deliberate posts, but I'll quickly say that the faithful Catholic has obedience to more than just the current Pope. They are likewise faithful to the Church and its teaching, and it seems to me that sometimes, that Church can trump the Pope.

* Being a Byzantine Catholic has made me somewhat skeptical of the idea that the Novus Ordo is uniquely responsible for the corruption and fall of the Church. We never had the NO, yet our churches have suffered as well, certainly in terms of the number of faithful, etc. Now, we're barely a sideshow to the Roman rite, but I can at least provide some first-hand experience on this front, and it tells me that whatever is going on, goes beyond the Novus Ordo.

* Pope Francis has been a bit more encouraging lately, talking frankly about the world's indifference to Christian martyrdom, and even warning about the threat of atheism in Europe. Good God - secularism as a bad thing? *Atheism* as a bad thing? Goodness.

* Is it wrong, even unChristian, to be getting a kick out of the whole Greece/EU debacle? I think it is, and I'm trying to deal with it. Part of me reminds myself that one should never wish ill on anyone, and the option to wish that they would change for the better is always not only paramount, but the only real option. But there is a part of me that enjoys watching an avowedly leftist government overseeing the prospect of having its reign marked by being forced to enact deep cuts in government services, privatizing substantial portions of its economy, and more. And the fact that it may have to do that no matter what, and depending on -how- it does it it may torpedo the monstrosity known as the European Union, is all the better.

* Naturally, I've been enjoying Rand Paul's response to the little Pro-Abortion trap, and it seems to have caused something of a reaction among other GOP presidential candidates. Could you imagine if the 2016 race was the race where the GOP became openly hostile to the near-entirety of the mainstream media? Where they stopped pretending these 'journalists' were, for the most part, anything but partisan shills in the employ of the Democrats? Now that would be one hell of a culture war development.

* Meanwhile, I notice the Sad/Rabid Puppies debacle continues. Brad Torgersen apparently thinks that he can act nice and apologize his way out of SJW hatred, which always baffles me. Have they not picked up the pattern yet? Do they notice that apologizing, that trying to gain SJW sympathy, never has any effect at all? That they see it as weakness? There's a reason there has been collective pants-shitting among people by Vox's presence and association with this debacle - because they know, come hell or highwater, that Vox and company are not people who can be shamed into silence, or apparently, silenced at all. Brad is not Vox, of course, but Brad may actually be capable of learning from Vox here.

* The main effect of the whole Sad/Rabid Puppies event may well be that it gets more conservatives - and other right-wing social pariahs - into sci-fi, at least as readers, perhaps as writers. God, wouldn't that just be the most horrifying thing? Can you imagine people having literary figures as heroes, and for those heroes to be conservative? Be still my dark heart.

Edit: Since there is some confusion, I want to be clear. I'm not advocating schism, or saying that the SSPX option is correct. I'm pointing out that the SSPX - kind of the standard-bearers for the ultra-traditionalists, I suppose - reject Elliot's binary of 'suffer in silence, or become sedevacantist'. I do not think there are only three options available here.

My summarized view is that there are some things the Pope cannot do, tradition and teaching he cannot change. To be loyal to that teaching and that tradition while he tries to undo it is not disloyalty to the Pope, since undoing it is not his option. Nor do I think this is something which can be "pastorally" worked around via technicalities.

Friday, April 17, 2015

Disintegrating Atheism

One reason I talk about New Atheists less lately is that Shadow to Light tends to do it vastly better than I do. Really, the guy keeps up to date on the latest Cultist of Gnu bullshit, he has powerful insights, and he's pretty merciless. He's also linked on my sidebar, and I encourage keeping tabs on him if you're into repeated takedowns of the Cultists.

Apparently the hot Gnu issue lately is Richard Carrier came out of the closet as a handjob with poor impulse control. Oh, I'm sorry - he's 'polyamorous', a sexual orientation, which means that if you criticize him for his behavior at all you're horrible and mean and deserve to be ashamed of yourself, you backwards thinker.

Which brings me to my other point: as near as I can tell, the New Atheists have pretty well imploded. I know they still are popular in a subculture way, a bit like how Ayn Rand still has her devotees - but really, most people I run into, non-believers included, seem pretty inclined to admit that Dawkins and company are just a pack of annoying, self-righteous jackoffs. This is before noting the Atheism+ schism (that didn't take long, did it) which regards the most visible New Atheist leaders with utter contempt. Granted, they're cut from a toxic mix of SJW politics and pseudo-atheism so foul that it's almost enough to make someone feel sympathy for Team Gnu, but really, I just find the whole thing pretty funny.

That's not to say I don't think there are serious threats posed to not just religious people, but free thinking in general - but I think the threat comes from Team SJW, not Team Gnu. In fact, Team Gnu seems destined for whatever re-education camp equivalents there are on the horizon in the West, highlighting the greatest unspoken fear of western philosophy - that God not only exists, but He has a sense of humor.

Making the church more palatable to the masses.

The complaint that the Church needs to change its views on abortion, same-sex marriage and more in order to 'stay relevant' and 'stop bleeding members' gets applied uniquely to America and the west. No advocate of this kind of thinking ever looks at the polls in Russia, China, Middle Eastern or African countries and decides, 'Wow, the Church better start condemning sodomy in those places -right away- if we want to be taken seriously!' Instead the overwhelming opposition to such things is taken as a sign of a great evil that should be denounced and opposed by all right-thinking Christians (and our materialist secular-atheist brethren, who are our allies, unless they are Objectivists in which case they're wicked.)

Thursday, April 16, 2015

The most unintentionally hilarious thing about Mark Shea...

...is how he advertises himself as 'Catholic and Enjoying It!', yet his posts amount to a near-nonstop bitter, sarcastic lashing out at just about everyone who disagrees with him. And I don't mean mere disagreement, but full blown bitter rage, in both passive and active aggression varieties.

Basically, whenever I check out his blog, this is all I can think of within five minutes of browsing:


Everything in moderation

People like to imagine moderates as occupying a Goldilocks 'just right' position between two otherwise obviously-wrong extremes, but being a moderate is often a matter of convenience rather than principle. They compromise because they just want to be left alone and will pick the path of least resistance, not because they see the position they're advancing at all ideal. More importantly, they're politically and socially irrelevant, precisely because they react rather than act - you can shift their positions just by screaming at them louder, and with more voices. But they never scream at anyone but the party that's already outnumbered anyway.

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Christos Voskrez!

Christ is Risen!

Happy Easter to all.

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Weekend Turnabout

With the blowback from the Indiana and Arkansas laws still fresh, there've been some other happenings worth noting towards the end of this week.

Memories Pizza in Indiana was found by a story-fishing reporter, out on the prowl for signs of bigotry and hate in the state of Indiana. Apparently the best she was able to pull up was a pizza parlor whose owners said they'd serve gay couples, but wouldn't want to cater a same-sex wedding.

One dishonest headline later (Along the lines of ''Restaurant says they'd refuse to serve gays!"), and the tolerant, progressive forces of the world are on the march to destroy the business completely.

Cue the Yelp defacing, the death threats over the phone and twitter, and the all-out attack by Progressives, and the shop's ready to close for good. A necessary sacrifice on the Progressive altar! Complete with half-hearted disavowals from progressives like, 'Death threats are bad, buuuut it's good to see people have no tolerance for hate.'

None indeed.

Anyway, a conservative radio personality steps in, starts a Gofundme campaign, and at this point they've got close to a million dollars to support them for their trouble. A nice show of support in and of itself, but what I find interesting in the above linked story is the reaction to the reporter attempting to cause a little trouble for the fundraising effort.

Apparently a local CBS affiliate's reporter decided to report the Gofundme campaign for fraud 'Just in case.' She got noticed. Cue the contacting of the station - her employer - and a sudden upswing in internet anger. Suddenly she's forced to apologize, not to mention (transparently) lie.

Terrible shit, these internet mobs, but apparently this is the way of the world now.

Meanwhile, . This in particular is fascinating to me, since it's a unique form of explicit anti-SJW pushback in territory that is normally seen as the friendliest to SJWs - fiction and media, and 'democratic' voting. Vox's side looks as if they were able to absolutely storm into the Hugo awards (making Vox himself a multiple-times Hugo Award nominated individual - not bad for a guy kicked out of the SFWA!) with their fans.

Who the awards will actually go to remain anyone's guess, but if by some stroke of luck Vox himself pulls and award, prepare for all hell to break loose.

This is worth watching in particular because it offers the potential of a blueprint of SJW pushback. Any conservative or even non-SJW victory in the realm of culture is important to pay attention to.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Congratulations, GOP, on your success in Indiana and Arkansas!

I'm talking about, of course, the way you successfully capitulated to your opposition.

See, I was worried I'd have to eat some crow here. Passing a law to protect religious freedom? To make it so religious people do NOT have to service a gay wedding or other event they dislike, even if they will serve LGBT people? A bit gutsy, that. Writing it into law even in the face of opposition at the time? Bold stuff. And then another governor preparing to sign the bill into law, despite the mounting pressure on Indiana?

Why, that's the stuff of backbone. More than that - sincerity! It's showing you're willing to stand for principle even if the media is against you.

Which would make my views about the party and GOP leadership absolutely wrong, of course.

So it's to my great satisfaction to read that in Indiana, GOP members will be meeting with LGBT activists to try and rewrite the bill in a way they'll find acceptable. Because, after having supported the firing of people for past opposition to gay marriage, and fining businesses out of existence for refusing to provide service to a same-sex wedding even if they'd happily provide service to gays normally, you know that they won't just demand - and get - complete capitulation!

And of course there's the Arkansas governor going back on his commitment to sign the bill into law, sending it back for a rewrite to "find a nice balance" between "diversity" and "religious protections". Naturally we can expect the bill to be completely gutted and if anything make it so refusing to service a gay wedding will require intervention from the state to oversee if the refusal was maybe kinda offensive to LGBT activists. This is the only way fairness will be ensured!

It's really encouraging when long-held suspicions receive support: the GOP has no concern about religious freedom, social conservatives, or anything other than its business wing, complete with its "progressive" politics, and utter disgust with anything that so much as slightly smacks of non-secular religion.