The Case Against The Jedi: A Response

So, this is what it’s come to. This is the SJWs preferred hobby: Three months of acting as censors and assessing works of fiction for political and moral purity.

Tipper Gore would be proud.

The latest target is George Lucas’ Star Wars sextilogy, put in the dock for such toxic masculine notions as self-restraint, not being ruled by one’s feelings, and insufficient feminism.

Here are the most objectionable bits.

– @7:31 “Bury your feelings deep down, Luke.”

Some selective editing. Obi-Wan is not telling Luke to fuck his feelings. He’s warning him to ‘protect’ his feelings because they may be used against him. to turn him to the Dark Side, which happened to his dad.

https://youtu.be/Z8uDQuWlnww?t=2m51s

– @7:52 They (Jedi) firmly believe that boys need to disassociate from their feelings and learn to tough it out in silence.

– @8:23 “The way we ‘turn boys into men’ is through injury: we sever them from their mothers, research tells us, far too early. We pull them away from their own expressiveness, from their feelings, from sensitivity to others. The very phrase ‘be a man’ means suck it up and keep going. Disconnection is not fallout from traditional masculinity. Disconnection is masculinity.”

– bell.hooks

This is a lie. A Jedi does not disconnect or disassociate themselves from their emotions. They learn to control themselves. They control their bodies, leading their skill not merely to fight, but to survive. They learn to control themselves, mentally and physically to protect themselves and others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSN5TPKMJ24

– @9:20 Anakin tries to emotionally detach from his mother?

– @9:43 Anakin needs emotional support!

– @9:59 “Be mindful of your thoughts Anakin, they betray you.”

This comment was made in response to Anakin divulging to Obi-Wan that he was having…nocturnal fantasies about a certain Queen-turned-Senator from Naboo. Would the Jedi Order have dismissed him from going to check on his mom? We already know the answer to that: No. He did. All he got for his trouble was a tongue lashing. His secret marriage to Padme on the other hand would have been too much.

But Padme’s Good-Bar was that good, why not leave the Jedi for it? We’ll get to that in a bit.

– @11:04 Real masculinity is the courage to risk being vulnerable in front of others.

Anakin was vulnerable in front of Darth Sidious. How well did that work out for him?

– @11:46 Why don’t the Jedi free all of the slaves in the galaxy? Despite the Jedi’s considerable influence and resources?

Didn’t Anakin just say that Jedi are forbidden possessions? As a matter of fact, let’s quickly review the Prequels depiction of the Jedi’s “considerable influence and resources”:

Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan have to bum a ride to Naboo from the Republic.

Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan have to bum a ride to Tatooine from the Naboo.

Qui-Gon has to gamble against Watto to get the parts for the Naboo’s broken ship and to free Anakin rather than just dipping in the Jedi’s petty cash box.

Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan have to bum a ride to Coruscant from the Naboo.

The Galactic Senate brushes off any concerns about the illegal blockade or Naboo or the Sith Lord Qui-Gon fought on Tatooine.

Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan have to bum a ride to Naboo from the Naboo.

George Lucas could have renamed the Phantom Menace “Hitchhiking Jedi’s Guide to the Galaxy” and it would have been an accurate title.

As for the slavery piece, and because SJWs view it as appropriate to bring political criticisms against artistic works, let me draw from a historical event: The American Civil War. The bloodiest conflict in American history that claimed more American lives in a single conflict that any other and slightly fewer than all of America’s other wars combined. That was in one country.

Now imagine such a war on a galactic level with weapons to match. Few countries in the real world have yielded Peculiar Institution without delay or bloodshed. Why would beings in the Star Wars universe, commanding planets and systems and operating within the law of their own territory, acquiesce to the threats or moral grandstanding of a Jedi?

Oh, that’s right, they probably wouldn’t.

– @12:00 Jedi dogma prohibits attachments, he must satisfy his emotional needs in secret.

By now, we’ve seen that Anakin’s attachment to his mother led him to butcher a village of Sandpeople. Ordinarily I would say that Sandpeople Lives Don’t Matter because they’re a pack of murdering xenophobes themselves.

If Anakin were righteous in fulfilling his “emotional needs” he would have resigned from the Jedi Order, become one of the Lost Jedi, and taken himself and his wife off to some remote corner of the galaxy to raise a happy little Force-sensitive family. But Anakin was afraid. Afraid that he couldn’t be “General Skywalker” hero of the Republic anymore. Afraid that he would never attain the rank of Jedi Master. Afraid of losing Obi-Wan’s friendship and respect.

Anakin, like a spoiled child, believed that he could have everything he wanted and have to give up nothing. In the end, he lost everything he was and might have been.

– @12:39 “The fear of loss is a path to the dark side. Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force….Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed, that is.”

– @13:29 Yoda could have acknowledged and validated Anakin’s fears. He could have listened and shown a little bit of empathy. He could have encouraged Anakin to seek counseling for his obvious trauma and anxiety.

Except…this advice turns out to be entirely true. As noted, Anakin was afraid to lose anything and ended up losing everything.

– @14:03 In this scene, he is just afraid for the safety of his family.

His SECRET family. The family he is unwilling to leave the Jedi Order for. The family he is unwilling to give up for the sake of the Jedi Order.

Fear and greed. Just like Yoda warned him against.

– @14:31 In reality, of course, fear, like most human emotions, serves an important physiological function.

– @14:50 Emotional Domino Theory “Fear – Anger – Hate – Suffering” Also not how emotions work. And yet, this emotional domino theory is core to the Jedi belief system.

Except that is how they do work for Force-users in the Star Wars universe. When a normal person gets angry, that’s it. They get angry and they get over it. Force-users get afraid or angry, the Dark Side tugs on their sleeve like a sleazy drug dealer and asks “Hey, kid! Wanna try some Force Lightning? The first hit is free. Second one will cost you.” Once you tap into the Dark Side, it’s easier to be afraid or angry and the Dark Side is waiting to offer you more power.

(Say Thermian Argument, you maladjusted, killjoy Social-Justice-wanking dipshits. I dare you. There are not small green aliens or laser swords either. Deal with the material on its own terms or fuck off.)

How do we know the Fear-Anger-Hate-Suffering line works in Star Wars? BECAUSE ANAKIN FOLLOWED THAT EXACT LINE TO BECOME DARTH VADER.

Fear:

Anakin feared losing his mother.

Anger:

Anakin’s fear turned into anger against the Sandpeople, leading to their deaths (justifiable or no, it was done in the heat of passion)

Hate:

Anakin still hated the Sandpeople, even after killing them.

Suffering:

Interestingly, the suffering created was Anakin’s own. He knew what he had done was wrong, which is why he didn’t tell another Jedi what had happened, not even Obi-Wan. He did tell his good friend, Darth Sidious however, who used this secret to manipulate Anakin iater.

And it happens again in Revenge of the Sith.

Fear:

Anakin feared losing Padme. Anakin feared that he would not become a Jedi Master.

Anger:

Anakin was angry with the Jedi for denying him what he felt was rightfully his, as well as the knowledge to save Padme.

Hate:

“From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!” (That was pretty terrible writing)

Suffering:

Anakin gets BTFO, loses his wife, children, and gets stuck in the Darth Vader suit.

– @16:24 “Just so we’re clear on what that means, according to the Jedi, it’s loving relationships with another person that leads men down the path to evil.”

Wrong on two counts. First, loving relationships with another person do not preclude a person from being or doing evil. Osama-bin-Laden had a loving family. Hitler loved his mommy. Plenty of murderers, thieves, rapists, stick-up men, torturers and other predators upon their fellow men had humans of which they were fond. Affection for one is not affection for all and it should not be. But by the same token, the ability to form affection is not ipso facto proof that one is good.

Second, those attachments or “loving relationships” as the author frames them, can very easily turn into justifications for all manners of evil in service to them. Refer again to Anakin Skywalker. Anakin’s “loving relationship” with his mommy led him to murder a village of sentient beings (deserving or not). His attachment to Palpatine led him to murder a (literally) unarmed Count Dooku. His “loving relationship” with Padme led him to the conclusion that slaughtering Jedi apprentices (I refuse to use those ridiculous ‘p’ or ‘y’ words) on the justification that it would give him the power he needed to save Padme’s life. Anakin plotted to kill Obi-Wan, Yoda, and Palpatine so that he and Padme could be king and queen of the galaxy.

So yes, ‘love’ whatever you make of that particular word, can very easily lead a man down the path of evil, especially when that love is not checked by wisdom or morality.

– @17:06 “By the end of Episode III, it’s been made abundantly clear that Anakin turns into Darth Vader, because he’s unable to suppress his love for the women in his life.”

It does seem to have led him down a…dark path?

But this is the hill that the author inexplicably chooses to die on because men compromising their honor, their comrades, their oaths, and their lives for the sake of a woman is just completely unheard of.

Also, it’s interesting how Anakin had these helpful female bosoms to cry into, but turned to the Dark Side anyway. Meanwhile, the stoic, self-disciplined, unattached Jedi did NOT fall to the Dark Side, but fell to treachery by someone in a position of lawful authority to which they submitted (Supreme Chancellor Palpatine).

It’s as if women do not possess the panacea to men’s woes.

It’s as if vesting more power into fewer hands with no checks on that power might result in disaster.

It’s something to think about, at least.

– @18:58 “He (Obi-Wan) instructs Luke to bury his love for Leia because, if he doesn’t his feelings will be seen as a weakness.”

It’s not as if the master manipulator and Sith Lord and Galactic Emperor won’t seize any emotional weakness he can to manipulate Luke into murdering his own father and becoming Sidious’ FOURTH apprentice. It’s not like this Sidious guy is especially practiced at using a person’s loved ones as a means of gaining his victim’s acquiesence to his evil Sith plots or anything.

Like with Darth Maul.

Or Count Dooku.

Or Anakin Skywalker.

Or Padme Amidala (thanks for the no-confidence vote, dummy).

– @19:58 “Men and boys are taught to hide their feelings because, we are told, expressing vulnerability demonstrates weakness.”

That is completely correct and completely true. Expressing vulnerability to predatory people, man or woman, demonstrates exploitable weakness, which predatory people will, shock and gasp, prey on.

– @21:58 When you really think about it, Luke Skywalker is at his very best when he doesn’t follow the path of the Jedi.

Yeah, let’s just conveniently ignore the part where Luke explicitly states that he is a Jedi, like his father before him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSGgODCqpFQ

The difference between Luke and Anakin by Return of the Jedi is that, Luke has abandoned his fear and his greed. He still wants to protect his sister and his friends, he wants to save his father, but knows that his duty is to stop the Emperor. Unlike Anakin, Luke does not wish to control life and death, not his own or others. He trusts the Force and he trusts his friends’ own strength to do their part. Anakin did not trust Yoda, or Obi-Wan, or Mace Windu, or even Padme by the end. He sought to control everything and ended up being controlled by Darth Sidious.

Yoda exhorted Anakin to learn self-control and he rejected the lesson, losing himself and everything he loved in the process. Yoda exhorted Luke to learn self-control. He rejected the lesson and lost his hand, but accepted it later and became a Jedi. The lesson is that by learning to control themselves to avoid being controlled by others. It also humbles the Jedi to understand that if mastering himself is a lifelong task, how could he hope master others, especially those with power like his who don’t agree with him? Most importantly, a Jedi, for all of his wisdom and power, may not have the right to exert control over others, no matter how much he disagrees with their choices (like slavery).

– @23:35 “Emotional detachment doesn’t prevent men from turning to the dark side. Emotional detachment is the cause of men turning to the dark side.”

That’s the lesson you took from this, huh? Because from my viewing, the more attachments Anakin formed, the more things he was unwilling to give up, the more things that were ultimately taken from him and the more he suffered for losing them.

The Case Against The Jedi excoriates the Jedi for a lack of insight into Anakin Skywalker’s problems and character, despite Anakin’s active efforts to deceive his fellow Jedi about exactly what was going on with him and blames Anakin’s own choices on people not named Anakin Skywalker.

Except for Padme, despite being a willing and consenting participant in all of the hot, forbidden, Jedi-on-Normie sex. Because she’s a woman and a woman can never be at fault. It’s just that fucking Patriarchy that makes them do it.

Anakin Skywalker’s problems did not come from Jedi training; Anakin’s problems came from the fact that he behaved like a sneaky, spoiled brat and got swatted down (with a lightsaber). It was Luke showing Anakin that a Jedi gives up all attachments, even to his own life, to do what is right, that showed Anakin what he had gotten wrong and how to redeem himself.

The Case Against The Jedi is ultimately a case against male self-restraint and self-mastery using the Jedi as props. There is the usual nonsense about men crying (no one has less mercy on male tears and male suffering than women) and emotional intimacy. But Star Wars showed us through the relationship between Anakin, Palpatine, Obi-Wan, and Yoda that a man should be cautious with his feelings and his precious male tears. When he trusts his feelings to the wrong person, he ends up in a walking iron lung without his arms and his legs (that’s you, Palpatine). As men, our true feelings and emotions are a treasure and we protect them as such. We do not share them easily or lightly.

Maybe you male feminists should try treating our feelings as such instead of as a clown show for the amusement and derision of your female masters. #IBatheInMaleTears

Advertisements

Death Wish the Remake; Progressives Get Triggered

Joshua Rivera, a writer for GQ, saw the new Death Wish trailer, starring Bruce Willis.

He was not amused because Bruce Willis (originally a comedian before he became an action star) cracks a joke in the trailer.

I’ll give you a moment to recover from the overwhelming shock of the man who coined the phrases “Yippee-kai-yay motherfucker!” and “welcome to the party, pal!” says a darkly humorous thing in a movie prominently featuring death and explosions.

Now that we’re all off of the fainting couch, let’s get to Progressive sermonizing Rivera engages in and why it is so stupid.

In moving the setting to Chicago, a city where gun violence is both well-documented and highly politicized, and setting the trailer to “Back in Black”, the remake tips its hand: 2017’s Death Wish comes off as a work of cowardice and opportunism, piggybacking off hard-right fear-mongering and a government that’s completely and utterly disingenuous in its rhetoric about violent crime when nationwide, crime rates—despite rises in cities thanks to mass shootings like the Pulse massacre in Orlando—remain historically low.

Rivera serves the reader up with this run-on sentence packed with several different items that are not related to each other.

In moving the setting to Chicago, a city where gun violence is both well-documented and highly politicized

“Gun violence”? Let’s call it what it actually is: Negroes murdering other Negroes over petty bullshit. According to the Chicago Police Department, in 2011, 75.3% of the murder victims in the city were Black. As for offenders, Blacks made up 70.5%.

We’re #1! We’re #1! We’re #1!

Oh wait, this is actually not a good thing.

And now, for the really fun stat: The clearance rate for murders in Chicago in 2015 was *drumroll please* 25.6%. You have a roughly 70-75% chance of getting away with murder in the city of Chicago.

Those are the documents. No spin, no politicizing, no bullshit.

and setting the trailer to “Back in Black”, the remake tips its hand:

They should have gone with “Shoot to Thrill”, but Roth would have had to fight Disney over it (because of Iron Cash Cow, I mean Iron Man) which is probably not worth the licensing fees.

2017’s Death Wish comes off as a work of cowardice and opportunism

No! You’re a coward and an opportunist!

Name-calling is boring.

piggybacking off hard-right fear-mongering

Russians. Russians are everywhere. They are hiding under your bed. They are all up in your DMs, jacking your emails, leaking your nudes.

Nope. Only the hard-right is fearmongering around here.

a government that’s completely and utterly disingenuous in its rhetoric about violent crime when nationwide, crime rates remain historically low.

No thanks to traditionally Democrat-controlled metropoli like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore, etc.

despite rises in cities thanks to mass shootings like the Pulse massacre in Orlando.

I can’t help but notice that Rivera neglected to mention that the murders done last year in Orlando at the Pulse nightclub, were perpetrated by Omar Mateen, a Jihad-enthusiast of Afghani-descent.

Must have been an oversight.

But, to the gungrabbers, motives don’t matter. The gun is actually the guilty party. This is why they count suicides as “gun violence.” which is why they insist that only the police be armed, because, through the magic of POST, they will always be present to prevent or stop crimes, and gain perfect knowledge of when and when not to use their guns.

This stands in stark contrast to the state of violent crime in the U.S. during the ’70s, a decade that did see rising crime as well as some of the most notorious killers in the nation’s history.

Bullshit. America has long had a voyeuristic fascination with killers, going back to Levi Weeks and the Manhattan Well Murder. Bonnie & Clyde. John Wilkes Booth. Charles Guiteau. H.H. Holmes. Thanks to the unholy marriage of TV and yellow journalism, murderers and psychopaths transformed from local legends to national celebrities.

The new Death Wish has an entirely different context, one where guns are routinely turned on black citizens by white supremacists and white cops, where mass shootings regularly occur and lawmakers refuse to do anything about it, where guns in the hands of the populace is not a rarity but arguably an epidemic. It takes a profound level of either ignorance or craven, willful opportunism to think that this is a moment to make a film about a white man’s rage channeled through the barrel of a gun.

This is just a rewording of the previous paragraph with a conclusion about “the white man’s rage channeled through the barrel of a gun.” Yeah. And when the Black man channels his rage through the barrel of a gun, usually against another black man, as is the norm in Chicago, Josuha Rivera, and mincing Progressives like him, are as quiet as mice pissing on cotton.

Black people, understand that this is the progressive norm. They will shed a thousand tears for you being killed in a movie, but won’t lift a finger to prevent you from being killed in real life, especially when it is by your most natural predator, another black man. These progressives mean you no good. They are part of the system of your debasement and destruction. They are advocates of the system that broke the Black family. They are defenders of the system that leaves millions of black men and black women miseducated, poorly educated, or flat-out uneducated. Progressives are the beneficiaries of generations of government subsidized dysgenics practiced on Black people.

But progressives want you to be outraged over a movie in which fictional social parasites and reprobates receive their just reward as a result of the lives they’ve led. Divine retribution in the form of a man named Paul Kersey.

This is going to be the first Eli Roth movie I pay to see.

It’s A Trap! Lil’ Duval vs. The Tranny Taqiyyah

It’s Monday in America, which means that the various forces of the Kulturkampf pick up their weapons and renew their battle for the eyeballs of the nation.

A black comedian named Lil’ Duval appeared on the stereotypically black radio show, The Breakfast Club (grown men laughing at shit that isn’t funny and playing the dozens for 2 or more hours). In the course of the show, this exchange took place:

The conversation started with Donald Trump and the transgender military issue. Lil’ Duval dodges the issue at first. Charlemagne asks what would he do if he banged a tranny.

I don’t care! She dyin’!

You take away a person’s power of choice by not telling them

I mess with girls with kids, just to be sure.

Why can’t Negroes tell the difference between a vagina and an anus? I understand that education in America is not very good, but girls have two holes on the bottom side (there’s also a urethra down there, but you can’t really do anything with it unless you’re into pee).

Predictably, the tranny Twitter screeching could be heard for miles.

Laverne Cox:

“Some folks think it’s ok to joke about wanting to kill us,” Cox wrote on Twitter. “We have free speech but that speech has consequences and trans folks are experiencing the negative consequences with our lives. It hurts my spirit cause this isn’t funny. Our lives matter. Trans murder isn’t a joke.”

Janet Mock:

“This was not the first time that I’ve been misgendered, dismissed, told that I am an abomination, that I need medical help and God, et cetera, et cetera,” Mock wrote. “Boo boo: You are not original. Everything you’ve spewed has been said to me and my sisters before — hundreds of times. But there are deeper consequences to this casual ignorance.”

“Until cis people — especially heteronormative men — are able to interrogate their own toxic masculinity and realize their own gender performance is literally killing trans women, cis men will continue to persecute trans women and blame them for their own deaths,” Mock continued. “If you think trans women should disclose and ‘be honest,’ then why don’t you work on making the damn world safe for us to exist in the first place? The ‘I’d kill a woman if I found out’ rhetoric is precisely why so many women hold themselves so tight — the stigma and shame attached to our desires need to be abolished.”

Long story short, it’s your fault that trannies lie by omission that they have, or once had, a penis, because they are afraid of what might happen if they tell the truth.

Essentially, Tranny Taqiyyah.

What is Taqiyyah, you ask? From Encylopedia Britannica:

Taqiyyah, in Islam, the practice of concealing one’s belief and foregoing ordinary religious duties when under threat of death or injury. Derived from the Arabic word waqa (“to shield oneself”), taqiyyah defies easy translation. English renderings such as “precautionary dissimulation” or “prudent fear” partly convey the term’s meaning of self-protection in the face of danger to oneself or, by extension and depending upon the circumstances, to one’s fellow Muslims. Thus, taqiyyah may be used for either the protection of an individual or the protection of a community. Moreover, it is not used or even interpreted in the same way by every sect of Islam. Taqiyyah has been employed by the Shīʿites, the largest minority sect of Islam, because of their historical persecution and political defeats not only by non-Muslims but also at the hands of the majority Sunni sect.

Unlike Christians, who must profess their faith, even in the face of persecution or death (because God is truth), Muslims are permitted to lie if they have “prudent fear” or are scared of stuff. That’s the same argument Janet Mock is presenting in defense of trannies tricking men into having sex with them (how you can be afraid of a man’s fist, but actively seek his dick remains a mystery).

Most troubling is the deprivation of agency that Cox, Mock and others seem to advance. These transgender activists scream about their own agency from the rooftops, how they should be able to do what they want, when they want, where they want, without ramifications or even disapproval. Yet men that they desire are not, in their minds, permitted to reject them on the basis that they have, or once had, a penis. How people can demand “respect” while actively denying that others have the right to their own personal and sexual preferences, is baffling.

Actually it isn’t. The wonderful thing about “Social Justice”: Other people don’t have the right to tell you no, as long as you have enough oppression points.

P.S.

As always, I have insert this disclaimer, because people are stupid: No, trannies should not be killed, or beaten, or otherwise harmed for obtaining sex by fraud. But it makes them pieces of shit for doing so.

Dissecting the Feminist Hamster: The Christian Feminist, or “Not All Feminists Are Like That”

I crowd-sourced from my feminist friends, and came up with a list of things we wish you knew about us.

Sound of cracking knuckles

Well. Let’s get this party started. I could use a little rhetorical exercise.

1. First of all: there are many feminisms. What you learn about what feminist, or one feminist tradition, does not necessarily extend to cover all feminists or feminisms. So proceed with caution.

The author starts nicely with a pleading of plausible deniability. It’s the Hamas/Fatah model (or the motte-and-bailey, or the bait-and-switch): One feminist says or does something outrageous, destructive, or disruptive (men are evil! We must have gender quotas! We must have programs! And grants! And subsidies! The Patriarchy! Rape apologists!)

When called on their bullshit, Feminists retreat to “look in dictionary! Feminism means Equality! You’re not against equality, are you? You hate your mother, don’t you? I’m not like THOSE feminists!”

One feminist does the damage; the rest reap the rewards while pleading absolute ignorance to the harm done.

2. We don’t hate men. Hating men is nowhere written into any existing feminist tradition or text. Some of us like men quite a lot, to be honest – even if we loathe the patriarchy. Now, it is true that a particular feminist might be angry at men. If she is, it’s quite possibly because she has been a victim of abuse or rape. Her anger is personal – maybe even a self-defense mechanism – not a feminist statement. And we hope that instead of just saying “hey, I’m not like that!” – you’ll prove that you’re not like that, by listening to her when she speaks up about injustice.

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” — Robin Morgan

“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” — Susan Brownmiller

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” –- Catherine Comins

“I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I’m concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene.” — Germaine Greer

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” — Valerie Solanas

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

Misandry is written into quite a bit of feminist text and tradition. But as the prophet Jeremiah wrote (this is a “Christian” feminist after all):

“Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear…”

Jer 5:21

Your “personal anger” means nothing to me. I have “personal anger.” Your cross is not bigger than mine, or heavier, or have more splinters. I would rather bear yours than you would bear mine.

But I don’t have the right to visit my “personal anger” on those who are not the cause of it, just as I don’t have the right to beat those who did not beat me, or rob those who did not rob me. A personal grievance is just that: personal. It is was caused by a person, and is held by another person. I will not stand still and be accused of things I did not do and I will not be an emotional punching bag for some feminist with a bug up her ass.

All have not sinned and fallen short of the glory of Woman.

3. We don’t particularly want to be like men – or at any rate, wanting to be like men is nowhere central to a feminist creed. Sure, some of us prefer a more androgynous or masculine aesthetic. I personally avoid wearing dresses and skirts, on the principle that you never know when you’ll have to climb out a window or jump on a horse and gallop away, but this is not due to any submerged penis-envy. Yes, we may do logic and manage money; we may fix cars or cut down trees or go hunting. None of these make us “like men.” They just make us women who are good at logic, or cutting down trees. In fact, many feminists specifically prefer to emphasize NOT being like men, with the idea that acting like men is harmful to the culture.

So…you don’t hate men…but “acting like men” is harmful to the culture…which is a Feminist position.

“Men” = “Harmful to the culture.”

Conversely…

“Women” = “Beneficial to the culture.”

Got it. Makes perfect sense.

4. We don’t love abortion. There are pro-life feminists. There are pro-life feminists. There are pro-life feminists (repetition, because I want it to sink in). Nearly all my feminist friends are prolife, as I am. But it’s also the case that pro-choice feminists do not think abortion is awesome, either. Even “shout your abortion” (a slogan that makes many of us deeply uncomfortable) is not intended to say “abortion is so awesome” – but, rather, to remove the stigma from talking about it.

I’ll just let the Jezzies take care of this:

There Is No Such Thing as a ‘Pro-Life Feminist’

And then we had the vanguard of feminism (Women’s March) unceremoniously exclude the “Pro-Life Feminists” from their hen party.

5. We don’t think women are superior to men. This is in fact, the opposite of the usual feminist view. There are certainly feminisms that argue for the superiority of a female worldview, but feminism tends to emphasize equality.

Are you back to pleading plausible deniability again?

“We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men.” — Elizabeth Cady Stanton

“It must be admitted that the lives of women are more useful to the race than the lives of men. — Op-ed, New York Times, April 19, 1912

“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”– Congressman Barbara Jordan

6. You can be a feminist and be Christian. And being a Christian feminist, or a feminist theologian, doesn’t mean you’re some kind of dangerous heretic.

Since this is a “Christian” feminist argument, see Matthew 6:24: No man can serve two masters (maybe a woman can since she is of two-faces and two-minds) for either he will hate the one, and love the other.

Christian Feminist. Muslim Feminist. Jewish Feminist. Buddhist Feminist. Hindu Feminist. Who is the master they will hate? Who is the master they will love? I say it is Feminism and if two are ever in conflict, they will disregard the master they hate (religion) to serve the master they love (Feminism).

7. We don’t hate motherhood and marriage. Most of us are interested in the flourishing of families, in healthy marriages, and the well-being of children. Some feminists love being domestic, even. And while others may be happier not getting married and starting a family, this is simply because they are being true to themselves. And while yes, there are branches of feminism that are critical of the institution of marriage, when you look at the history of the institution of marriage, you can hardly blame them.

“The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon

“It is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this marriage. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of that institution.” — Sheila Cronin

“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” — Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois

“All sexual intercourse even consensual between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” — Catherine MacKinnon

The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men…. All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. (from “The Declaration of Feminism,” November, 1971).

It appears that some rather important feminists do hate motherhood and marriage and domesticity and are of the opinion that it should not be an option available to women. Imagine that, feminists trying to deprive people of the right to choose. I thought they were all on this “Pro-choice” trip.

But marriage is indeed a terrible thing. The institution wherein a man is legally obligated to subsidize a woman and her brood (law states that a man is responsible for children produced during the duration of a marriage, even if they are demonstrably not his offspring) and even if the marriage ends, his status as servant does not end as evidenced by his liabilities in the form of alimony and child support. This makes the marriage contract more akin to peonage or indentured servitude.

8. We’re not necessarily aligned with any political ideology or group. Feminists come in many political, as well as religious, flavors. And being feminist doesn’t, or shouldn’t mean neglecting other political or social issues. That’s what being “intersectional” means.

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon

Feminism was born from Socialism. The man who coined the term and originally devised the ideology (Charles Fourier) was a Socialist of the Communalist stripe. Feminism, from its inception, is aligned with a political ideology. Unlike the “Armed Doctrine” that emerged from the Paris Commune, Feminism could be described as the “Cancerous Doctrine” for the reasons the author states: It is a thing that can append itself to any other group, ideology, religion, or society, and convert it from its normal form and processes to abnormal form and processes that it cannot sustain. Feminism operates in much the same way, infiltrating, attacking, and converting healthy, non-feminist social organs and ideologies until they become feminist and ultimately die.

“Intersectionality” is merely a vector by which the disease of Feminism attacks the host.

9. Just because we’re angry about injustice, this doesn’t mean we aren’t happy and grateful for the good things in our lives.

“Injustice”, whatever your definition of that word might be, is not a license to act in whatever way you want without consequence.

10. Yes, men can be feminists. Okay, this one is up for some dispute, for various reasons: some feminists prefer to think of sympathetic men as allies. Some allies are wary about identifying as feminists, NOT because it will make them “less masculine” (massive eye-roll) – but because they have seen too many men claim to be feminist in order to try to take advantage. This strikes me as a pretty feminist perspective, actually, and I appreciate it. Personally, though, I believe men can be feminists – and should be feminists. This is not only because male support is valuable, but because entering into discourse with male feminists can add a lot to our understanding about how humans best relate and understand one another, what societal structures are harmful, and how best we can dismantle them in a way that is wholesome, not destructive.

“Male feminists” or “male allies” can be dumped into two categories: Quislings and Puppeteers. Some call quislings by other titles: White Knights, Eunuchs, Beta Males. In this instance, Quislings most closely captures the substance of the pathetic creature in question. In the quisling category are men who will gladly throw over another man for female approval. Some quislings hope that female approval will buy him access to vagina. That hope is as childish and short-sighted as the kid who spends 20 dollars buying tokens at Chuck E. Cheese to play games, and win enough tickets for a prize that retails at 2 dollars. Sex is cheaper to buy outright than win through games of chance or skill. The other quislings are men who put women on a pedestal as their goddess-victim. Woman, to this quisling, is at once more wise, and pure, and moral than men. At the same time she is ever in danger of being torn down from her lofty pedestal and ravaged by these inferior beings. Woman, to these quislings, is an idol made of glass: a god of his own imagination who cannot help him and cannot save herself.

On the other side, we have the puppeteers. The puppeteers are smart enough to use Feminism to their own ends while claiming the mantle of “feminist” or “ally.” The author, at the start of her article has a picture of First-wave feminist Doris Stevens, a member of the National Women’s Party. The National Women’s Party, for all of its proto-“GRRL POWER!” posturing and protesting, did not accomplish its goal of obtaining suffrage. That “honor” goes to Carrie Chapman Catt and the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Catt set aside her pacifist principles (proving they were not principles at all, but preferences) and threw the weight of her 2 million woman organization behind Woodrow Wilson’s war in Europe. Similarly in England, the Order of the White Feather, founded by Charles Fitzgerald and eagerly supported by the Pankhursts clan, shamed and cajoled men, many of whom could not vote themselves, to sign away their lives to the British Army. Once 100,000 American men and millions of other men were sacrificed on the altar to European stupidity, and a breach had been created that International Socialism and National Socialism, the Feminists of Britain and the United States were rewarded with the vote for their collaboration in sending thousands of men and boys to their deaths.

Get enough men killed, and you too can obtain the vote.

Back to Doris Stevens and the National Women’s Party. The NWP was headed by Alice Paul, a militant feminist and great admirer of the Pankhursts and their campaign of feminist terrorism in Britain (for example, see the attempted assassination of Prime Minister Harold Asquith). Alice Paul was a close friend and ally of Howard W. Smith, Democrat Representative for the state of Virginia. Smith was segregationist, but he was also a supporter of feminism. The reason? Alice Paul, like many feminists of the time, eagerly offered up “women’s rights” as a bulwark against blacks obtaining political power. The statements and speeches and quotes are numerous. I have reproduced them elsewhere and will not do so here. For 20 years, Smith annually sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment, the pet legislation of the NWP. In 1964, he sponsored an amendment to add “sex” to the list of protected classes in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the basis that “white women” would suffer greater discrimination than black men if not included.

The argument won the day.

These are just two examples of puppeteers using the unprincipled and amoral grasping for power of Feminists to further their own ends, whether it be for increased power for a totalitarian state or to advance white supremacy. It also demonstrates that the political power of feminists is wholly dependent on their relationship to powerful men and not any courage or virtue of their own. Put another way, Feminists in the hands of a puppeteer show that they would rather be the master’s most favored slave on a plantation than embrace freedom from being ruled and if they must sacrifice the lives and freedom of men, they will gladly do so.

And the causes of women are a seemingly bottomless chasm into which tax dollars may be poured, bureaucrats hired and deployed to study and write papers, a photo-op for disreputable politicians, and a talking point for propagandists and moral scolds to argue over whose heart has been broken into more pieces by the sight of female suffering.

Any man who espouses feminism, or the grievances of women as a class, is either an idiot or a manipulator.

Postscript: we really, really wish you would take a little time to educate yourself on the history of feminism, and on different feminist traditions, before making any magisterial statements about them – or us.

This whole thing was one long paean to NAWALT. What cupcake does not notice or care to address is that the exception, even if it exists, does not disprove the rule. And it smacks completely of insincerity given the history and practices of Feminism.

I understand Feminism all too well. That’s why I stand in opposition to it. I will not bow to a female supremacist movement.

Source

Anti-Trump “Peace and Love” Riots: The Tribalism of the American Progressive

I have not seen this many Democrats throw this much of a hissy fit about a Republican president since 1860 when Abraham Lincoln became President-Elect.

…he(Lincoln) showed me his recent contributions by mail of the [Southern] chivalry; there were editorials, in pompous language, referring to him as the Illinois ape, a baboon, a satyr, a negro, a mulatto, a buffoon, a monster, an abortion, an idiot, etc. There were threats of hanging him, burning him, decapitating him, flogging him, etc. The most foul, disgusting and obscene language was used in the press which were the organs of the Southern elite par excellence, of the nation, as they thought. Nor had the limner’s art been neglected: in addition to several rude sketches of assassination, by various modes, a copy of Harper’s Weekly was among the collection, with a full length portrait of the President-elect; but some cheerful pro-slavery wage had added a gallows, a noose and a black cap.

-Henry Clay Whitney, 1860

Am I suggesting that the idiot children of the middle class, the effete Social Justice thumbsuckers who couldn’t bust a grape in a fruit fight will attempt secession? Not at all.

Downtown L.A. Anti-Trump Protests Lead to More Than 200 Arrests: LAPD

As a third night of protests over Donald Trump’s election swept through major cities, more that 200 people were arrested in the downtown Los Angeles area, police said Friday.

The Los Angeles Police Department made 185 arrests, and the California Highway Patrol made 30 arrests, an LAPD spokesperson said.

One officer was in stable condition Friday after being assaulted by someone who was trying to tag LAPD headquarters with graffiti. The individual involved was also hospitalized.

Most of the protesters appeared to be young — under 30. One young man told KTLA that there was a feeling of “love” and unity among Trump’s critics.

“When you’re in that crowd … you know everyone’s not just saying ‘F Donald Trump’ just to say it,” protester Arnold Jimenes told KTLA. “Everyone feels that this man should not be representing our country.”

Nothing says “love” and “unity” like coming together for just two minutes every day to hate Emmanuel Goldstein…I mean Donald Trump and reaffirm our love and unity for Big Brother.

Let’s look at a little more “love” that Hillary backers have in their hearts.

BROOKLYN SINGER CHARGED WITH ASSAULT DURING ANTI-TRUMP PROTESTS IN MANHATTAN

http://abc7ny.com/video/embed/?pid=1602436

The lead singer of the Harlem Gospel Choir is under arrest, accused of assaulting a Trump supporter during an anti-Trump demonstration in Manhattan Thursday night.

Shacara McLaurin, 23, of Brooklyn was arrested a short time after performing at the Plaza Hotel.

Her family says she and a friend walked past the protest in front of Trump Tower, when a Trump supporter assumed they were protesters and followed them, calling them the N word.

The 74-year-old Trump supporter suffered a cut on his head. Mclaurin is expected to be arraigned Friday afternoon.

The arrest came as a large group of demonstrators once again gathered outside Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue Thursday night.

McLaughlin was charged with felony assault. She is believed to be a Clinton supporter.

“This was a dispute over the Clinton Trump campaign,” police said.

He choked me! And threw me out! And called me a n*gger!

Oh, wait, this isn’t Azaelia Banks.

Black females love them some Jesus. They love Jesus so much that they’ll get done singing hymns and praise songs, then go fight in the streets because somebody said something they don’t like. Read Matthew 10:14; If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.

They love singing and dancing for Jesus, but they don’t like doing what Jesus told them.

Moving on to Democratic People’s Republic of Portlandia.

Another night of nationwide protests against Donald Trump’s election came to a head in Portland, where thousands marched and some smashed store windows, lit firecrackers and sparked a dumpster blaze.

Some 4,000 protesters surged into the downtown area late Thursday night with chants like “we reject the president-elect!”

Yes, these are the people who should have the policymaking power in America; the ones who destroy property and start riots when they don’t get their way. These are the “love” and “unity” people. They’re against haters like Donald Trump. And business owners. And dumpsters.

Head on down the Left Coast to Oakland.

Crews were mopping up Oakland’s downtown and parts of Uptown on Friday morning, following a third night of protests opposing the election of Donald Trump that included at least 11 arrests.

Although smaller and less chaotic than Wednesday’s protest, Thursday’s march was marked by dumpster fires and broken windows in at least two downtown businesses.

The 11 arrests, plus another seven citations issued were for a variety of suspected crimes, including assault on officers, vandalism, failure to disperse and public intoxication.

One of the people arrested had a cache of Molotov cocktails, Officer Johnna Watson said early Friday.

“HURR HURR! Uneducated Trump voters!”

Do you know what the non-college educated Trump voters didn’t haven’t been doing for the last three days? Clogging up the streets, destroying property and trying to burn shit down.

Let’s hop across the flyover states (because who cares what these unwashed, landlocked non-degreed peasants think, am I right?) to Richmond, VA.

http://up.anv.bz/latest/anvload.html?key=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

As roughly 150 anti-Trump protesters took to the streets of Richmond Wednesday night, the state Republican headquarters and several monuments were vandalized, including the Jeff Davis Memorial, which was spray-painted with the phrase “your vote was a hate crime.”

Virginia State Police arrested 10 people and Richmond Police arrested two more. All were charged with unlawful assembly. Of the 12 arrested, 10 were VCU students.

“We represented ourselves very well…except for the vandalism and property destruction.”

But the most disturbing incident is the “your vote was a hate crime” graffiti, because it reflects the tribal mentality of the anti-Trump brigade.

They cluck their tongues at anything they think is “right-wing violence” but when they run about smashing property, committing assaults, and disturbing public order, it’s okay, because they’re the ones doing it, and they have really, really, REALLY important reasons for doing it. These are the same types who clutch their pearls at that famous Nixon interview in which he stated that (in the context of national security):“Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.””

Yesterday, I posted about how the mainstream media in America is dying due to self-inflicted gunshot wounds to its own head. The American progressives are suffering from a similar ailment; The election on Tuesday demonstrated that the American public does not believe that Democrats in particular and the American Left in general argues any position in good faith, and the reality is that they don’t because they are incapable of doing so. They are incapable of doing so because they have abandoned the tools of reason and logic and grammar, and taken up sophistry and demagoguery. They refused to argue politics and simply proclaimed, loudly and often, that anyone who opposed them was guilty of moral turpitude (You’re a racist/sexist/homophobe/Islamophobe/Immigrantophobe/Transphobe/Tax-phobe/War-phobe/Insert your ad hominem of choice here) and to be disregarded.

And finally, after 50 years of this (its always gone on, but it didn’t become the Democrats primary weapon of choice until the 1964 Presidential election between Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson), the American public is immune to this simplistic name-calling and shaming. Now, when people are called (Insert your ad hominem of choice) they don’t bat an eyelash at it, because they know if the speaker is a Democrat, or some Democrat operative, they are likely full of shit and just trying to circumvent an argument without having to engage it.

Democrats. Anti-Trump protesters. This is the political landscape you have cultivated. This is the level to which you have dragged down political discourse in America. This is the fruit of identity politics and political tribalism. This is the bed which you have made. Now lie quietly in it.

“Hoes Gon Be Hoes featuring Annaliese Nielsen” Or “How To Not Engage Stupid People In Real Life”

Lauren Southern of Rebel Media, blonde Becky news-chick and professional IRL troll of social justice types, published a Youtube video today. The video is mostly dark, but one of the parties recorded is alleged Annaliese Nielsen.

Who is Annaliese Nielsen? More importantly, why do I care?

Two great questions that should routinely be asked. Annaliese Nielsen is an entrepreneur and pornographer, occupations which would ordinarily put her in favorable standing, except her niche, rather than being something respectable like lesbian double-anal fisting is tattooed, pierced, smug hipsters (Suicide Girls with more self-importance). Nielsen is also one of the founders of a small social networking site called “Crushee.” Nielsen also runs a (sort of) secret Facebook group called “Girls Night In,” centered around Los Angeles. An online Tupperware party, if you will.

Long story short, Nielsen is a “GRRL POWER!” social-media butterfly with a head full of “Wymyn’s Studies,” “Patriarchy,” “Rape Culture,” etc.

So Annaliese gets into a Lyft rideshare, clearly inebriated and with what little filter between her lizard brain and her oversized mouth left in the bottom of a liquor bottle. She sees that the driver has one of those goofy Hula girl things on his dashboard and proceeds to freak out.

Note: Nielsen actually recorded this video as though it would make her look good.

Nielsen: You thought that was adorable, you didn’t think about the pillaging of, like, the continent of Hawaii?
Driver: I didn’t even know there was pillaging.

Nielsen: Oh, you didn’t?

Driver: No.

Hawaii isn’t a “continent” as is commonly understood (the seven large continuous landmasses on Earth). I guess they need less gender theory and more geography in “Wymyn’s Studies.” Seven continents. Five oceans.

Nielsen: Okay. So you won’t get rid of the doll then? Because that was like “a really cute pick that you found at Goodwill.”

Driver: No. I’m not going to get rid of it because of that. I just didn’t realize that it was offensive to anybody.

He made a mistake right here. He should have never framed his reply around “offensiveness,” because you are stuck in arguing over…a Progressive/SJW’s FEELINGS! Never argue with another person over their subjective emotional reactions.

The correct answer to this would have been “yes, I found it at the Goodwill. I liked it, bought it, and put it in my car. That is the correct answer. Good job.”

Nielsen: But, so obviously, like, you as, like, a white male, you are, like, the least, like…

Driver: But now you’re judging me, you’re assuming where I’m from.

Remember the bolded part. It’s going to be important in the second act.

Nielsen: No, I’m not, I’m not judging you. I’m just saying, like the, perhaps like you might be the person who is least hurt in the situation.

Nielsen: I’m a passenger in your car, like, that doll is offensive to me, but you don’t want to take it down because you, like, “found it at Goodwill and it was a good find.”

Driver: Uh, I don’t know where to go from here; you want me to take down something I just put on because…

Nielsen: Yeah, no I do want you to, because it’s actually deeply offensive and I do want you to take it down.

She’s inviting him to argue with her about her emotions. His first instinct is the correct one: don’t take the bait. His instincts as a man are telling him “don’t argue with this dummy! DON’T DO IT!” But, he kept on going.

Driver: Alright, well obviously you’re going to give me a one star, but I’m not taking it down, so I’m sorry about that.

Mistake. From the way the driver talks, he’s probably partially indoctrinated in Progressivism and passive-aggressive Newspeak, based on this boilerplate non-apology that Proggies are really good at giving (I’m sorry you feel that way).

The correct answer is, never apologize. Not even once. Progressives don’t have the capacity to show mercy or the grace to show forgiveness.

Nielsen: I’m gonna do worse than give you a one star.

See what I mean? Instead of taking the phony-baloney apology, she’s motivated to cause this man pain and suffering and harm.

Driver: Do whatever you like, I’m not trying to offend you, if you want me to drop you off over here or at the next exit I can do that.

Nielsen: No, I would like you to take me to my destination.

Driver: I will do that, but…

Nielsen: Thank you.

Driver: But I don’t know why my beautiful Lady Lola is offending you.

Oh for fuck’s sake! You had the end of the conversation right there. As soon as she said thank you, turn up the radio, watch the road, and pretend that bitch isn’t in the backseat of your car. Instead, he practically asked her “please, whisper more of your drunken irrational bullshit in my ear. I’m so interested.”

Nielsen: What’s your name? You’re going to be on Gawker.

Driver: I’m not on Gawker.

Nielsen: No, on, you will be published on Gawker. And you’ll be like the next Internet meme, and it’s going to be super funny.

Nielsen: Yeah, I mean, like God forbid anyone take your special Hawaiian doll away from you.

Notice how easy it is for the feminist woman to offer to subject her targets to social shaming and ridicule. “I’ll put you on Gawker”/”Write your name on the bathroom stall and say that you eat boogers!” Gawker has thankfully breathed its last desperate gasp thanks to Hulk Hogan running wild on that pitiful scandal rag with his 24 inch pythons of civil litigation.

Way to keep up with the plot, Annaliese.

Driver: I mean, what’s more comedic is how offended you’re getting by that…

Nielsen: Um, because it’s a thing that actually affects my life, and a thing that doesn’t affect your life.

Seeing as how he expended time and money to find, acquire, and affix the doll to his dashboard, yes, it does actually affect his life, Annaliese.

Driver: No, I’m Asian as well, so…

Ohhh. Remember when I told keep it in mind that Annaliese called the driver a white male?

Welcome to the second act.

Nielsen: Okay, so what is your Asian heritage?

Driver: It’s irrelevant.

Nielsen: No, it’s not irrelevant, it’s actually super relevant.

Driver: Really?

Nielsen: Yeah, so which part of it is not relevant?

Now, if the driver had the proper frame of mind, he would have, at this point, hammered her into silence by reminding her that she called him a white man not more than a few minutes earlier. He could have told her it’s irrelevant because she’s such a racist that she can’t tell the difference between Asian men and white men, and that any further discussion with such an evil, racist, thoughtcriminal like her was “triggering” him, and then watch her brain explode.

Passenger: This whole conversation is irrelevant. The fact that you care that much about something that’s on his dashboard…

The voice of reason cries out from the heavens.

Nielsen: Yes, I do, actually care a lot.

Passenger: That’s sad.

Nielsen: It’s not sad. It’s important.

Passenger: Pretty pathetic.

Isn’t it fun to listen to two females in conflict argue with each other? “You’re sad!” “No! You’re sad!” “You’re pathetic!” “No I’m not! You’re pathetic!”

Nielsen: Did you say it was pathetic? Can I have your name, please?

Passenger: Yeah. Jade.

Nielsen: And your last name?

Passenger: [Redacted]

Nielsen: Thank you.

What is this thing with Progressives/SJWs demanding to know people’s full names? Do they think they are the world’s hall monitors and they can write people up for cutting class or smoking in the bathroom? That dumb chick Zarna Joshi was doing it in Seattle. Now this dumb chick is doing it.

Must be a Wymyn’s Studies thing.

Driver: And now the passengers are fighting, I’m so excited.

Driver: Wow, you’re the first bad experience I’ve ever had with Lyft, and some portion of it has to be like that.

Dude, why? you were free of this conversation. Just let those two argue in the backseat and drive.

Nielsen: And I’m excited.

Of course she’s excited to be an inconvenience to someone else.

Driver: I’m a very respectful person, and the fact that you’re taking offense to that, like, I’ll take a picture of it…

Nielsen: That’s a disrespectful object that you have in your car, and whether you’re Asian or not you should be considerate to the fact that you have passengers that don’t find that thing to be…

Wait a minute. Didn’t she just say that his Asian-ness was “super relevant” to…whatever point it was she believed she was trying to make? Now she’s pivoted to, “whether you’re Asian or not, your Hula doll offends me.” Nielsen is contradicting herself. Again!

Driver: Considering the fact that you want me to rip it off of my dashboard when it’s superglued…

Nielsen: No, I just said you can set it down for a second, it might not be amusing to all passengers, you’re going to experience this again, by the way.

Driver: Okay.

How’s he going to set it down when it’s superglued, smart guy?

Nielsen: And so I hope that from this lesson, like, today…

Driver: What’s the lesson? Like, you’re being rude, actually.

Nielsen: No, I’m not being rude.

It must really be nice to have the confidence and security of a vagina in the United States, to have the confidence that you can just wag your finger at complete strangers and not worry about any repercussions, not even that you might be told to fuck off.

Driver: There’s one way to tell somebody something, and then there’s another way. You’re doing it in…you’re not being pleasant.

Nielsen: Oh, because I wasn’t “nice enough” to you?

Driver: I’ve been pleasant to you this whole time…

Nielsen: I wasn’t “nice enough” to you for this thing? That’s fine. I’ve been video recording the entire time. I’m excited.

Driver: That’s cool, and I’m being respectful to you…

Nielsen: No you’re not. You have been actually very rude and extremely entitled…

I’m confused, is the driver “White male” entitled? Or “Asian male” entitled?

Driver: Oh, I’m sorry that my Hawaiian lady has offended you.

Nielsen: Yeah, I’m sorry that you have no consideration for actual Hawaiian people who don’t want to be a bobblehead item in your car while you’re driving for Lyft.

Nielsen: You fucking selfish dumbass idiot.

Verbal abuse. What a charming lady.

Driver: I’m being rude?

Nielsen: You are being rude. You have no connection to this culture.

Nielsen: You know, that is a cute little bobble item that you have in your car, that you don’t know anything about, and you’re an idiot.

Driver: Thank you very much for your opinion.

Nielsen: Yeah. You’re welcome. Maybe you will think about it, tomorrow when you wake up in the morning.

Driver: I very much will. This is going to be awesome. Thank you so much. I’m ending this ride right now so if you’d like to call another Lyft, you can go ahead and…

Praise baby Jesus! His sack dropped and he told this bitch to hit the bricks. I understand why cabbies generally don’t talk to fares.

Nielsen: You can take me all the way to my house.

Driver: I actually don’t have to, it’s not…

Nielsen: No, yes you do.

Driver: It’s my car. I’m confirming a dropoff. Here’s a sidewalk. Have a wonderful night.

Nielsen: Thank you. I’m so excited. Can I have your name again?

Driver: Nope. Have a great night.

Excellent. Excellent. But again with the “what’s your name?” Does this bitch think she’s Lynyrd Skynyrd?

Nielsen: Yes, I can. Can I have your name again? Well, I’ll just stay here, then.

Driver: Well then. Oh my God. This is my car, can you please get out of it?

Nielsen: No, I won’t. Call the police. Call 911.

Driver: Okay.

Nielsen: About how I won’t leave your car.

Passenger: I wish you would.

Driver: Can you please exit the vehicle?

Nielsen: No, I can’t but you can give me your first and last name.

Nielsen: Here’s what I’ll do instead.

[Nielsen exits the vehicle.]

[Driver drives away.]

Nielsen: Holy shit.

Nielsen: The weirdest night of my entire life. And he could not get away fast enough, so that I couldn’t get his license plate number. How cute.

Christ almighty, that was like having an argument with a three-year-old.

To tie this up nice and neat, consider the following:

Ridesharing people (LYFT, UBER, etc.) seriously consider buying a dashcam of some kind with audio and video and nightvision. I believe they are $20 at Walmart. You never know what kind of childish degenerate might get in the backseat of your car and you might need this for your own protection later.

Engaging stupid people in an argument. Thanks to the internet, extricating yourself from dealing with idiots has never been easier. The block function on forums and networking sites is proof Aqua Buddha loves his children and wants what’s best for us. Unfortunately, there is no block function for the idiots wandering around IRL disguised as human beings, desperately seeking to draw you into a meaningless conflict with them so as to feed their hunger for emotional energy and feedback. So, what to do?

With respect to the video above, Nielsen didn’t actually want the bobblehead down. It was never about the bobblehead. Notice how Nielsen kept saying how “excited” she was. Idiots feed on conflict and drama. They don’t want to reach a productive or satisfactory conclusion to anything. She wanted to force this man to engage with her on her own level (which he did partially) and comply with her demands (yield to her, which he did not do).

Recognize the goals and recognize the tactics. I can’t give you are definitive list because I don’t have one. The goals are almost universal (engagement and compliance). The tactics vary from person to person and situation to situation. You saw a good offering of tactics Progressive/SJW idiots use both IRL and online (shaming, outrage, mockery, name-calling). A good way to foreclose engagement with stupid people who claim to be offended is to assume the following posture:

“I acknowledge that you might be offended by X. But I don’t care whether or not you are actually offended. Fuck your feelings. We’re done here.”

The driver finally adopted this posture when he told her to get out of his car and what happened? After some last ditch attempts to keep the conflict going, she got out of the car and he drove off, extricating her from his life.

Long story short, when a stupid person attempts to engage with you, indicate, verbally and non-verbally, that you do not give a damn what this person has to say and that you will not give them the gift of expending your time and energy to treat their stupidity as though it has merit.

Mulatto BLM Fanatic Breaks Into A Cop’s House; Catches Hot Lead to The Chest

Tyler Gebhard, 20, of Affton, MO, broke into the home of an off-duty St. Louis County Police officer after threatening the officer and his family on Facebook (Heil Zuckerberg!) as the result of an argument online between himself and the officer. Gebhard and the unnamed officer had a prior acquaintance. Gebhard arrived at the officer’s home at around 6 PM. He tossed a 50-pound planter through a glass door at the rear of the house. The officer’s family retreated to a bedroom while the officer confronted Gebhard. The officer shot Gebhard twice in the chest. EMTs took Gebhard to St. Anthony’s Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Once again, another person who takes this Facebook/Social Media shit way too seriously. I pray to Aqua Buddha for the day when somebody drags Zuckerberg and the rest of his ilk into court for a wrongful death lawsuit. I’m not sure it would work, but I hold Facebook in the same contempt as I do Gawker. And Salon. And Slate. And Jezebel. And The Huffington Post. And Bustle. And CBS. And FOX. And ABC. And NBC. And USA Today.

But I digress. Most of the time, if you are arguing with someone on the other end of a computer, the argument is probably stupid and you gain nothing from it. In this case, Tyler did gain something; two small brass projectiles, hurled into his body at approximately the speed of sound which left him metabolically challenged.

His uncle (no mom and dad in this story, which is telling) said that he was such a good boy because, well, he played football, and he went to college. Because aren’t all college students and football players fine, upstanding, moral individuals? There was also a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, for which he was prescribed medication, but didn’t like to take.

Which brings me back to the prior point about arguing on the computer with people. I just assume you are all drugged and insane and that engaging you for any length of time will only worsen your insanity. And this is another nutjob that has flocked to the Black Lives Matter banner. I just posted about the nutty Miss Alabama and the bullshit argument about collective guilt.

When Dylann Storm Roof shot the Churchians in Charleston, the usual suspects were quick to broad-brush Roof as the poster boy for “White America.”

Dylann Storm Roof and the conversation white America should actually be having about race

Dear white allies after Charleston: Please understand this about your privilege
White Terrorism Is as Old as America
I’m still waiting for white people to start apologising for Dylann Roof
America needs some soul searching
This is American terrorism: White supremacy’s brutal, centuries-long campaign of violence

I said my peace about Roof and will not rehash it. It’s interesting that both Dylann Storm Roof and Micah Xavier Johnson were both failures at life, both tied their identities to the accomplishments/worth of people not themselves, and both wanted to provoke a race war.

It’s almost as if race/class war ideologies tend to attract losers and failures and incompetents whose lives are without value or purpose.

Sort of like the type of guy who would run off to a cop’s house to pick a fight over a Facebook argument about BlackLivesMatter.

Source

Archived Source