Is there any doubt that the T-Shirt below is as representative of the real sentiments of the low-information Democrat base as it is of their grammar skills?
Hat Tip: Weezy
Is there any doubt that the T-Shirt below is as representative of the real sentiments of the low-information Democrat base as it is of their grammar skills?
Hat Tip: Weezy
Interesting thread at AoSHQ today, in which commenters discussed their experiences with liberal family members and acquaintances. This story kicked it off.
About twenty years ago we had a family reunion. Instead of meeting at some public park or somebody volunteering to host it at their house, as my parents did back in 1976 where I got drunk off my butt and smoked weed with another uncle (but that’s another story), we decided to have it at a Mexican restaurant close to where most of us lived. We arrived first and arranged with the management to reserve some tables. Soon the liberal contingent showed up and immediately started ordering, and they weren’t shy about scarfing many appetizers, entrees, and slamming down beer and margaritas like Prohibition had just ended.
And then, at the end of the evening, every member of the liberal side of the family got up and walked out, leaving their bills unpaid.
In retrospect, we should have made clear that it was expected that everyone would pay for their own meals. I think we expected that everyone would know this, but apparently it did not get communicated, and apparently we were very naive. The problem is, it would never occur to my father, my brother, or myself to go to a restaurant, gobble down a bunch of food, and then walk out without asking the obvious question, who’s paying for this?
As it turned out, my father was the one who ended up paying for it. I think my brother helped, but back in those days, I didn’t have much money, otherwise I would have helped, too, more than my own meal. We were in an unenviable situation where it would have been gauche to make our liberal relatives aware of their bad manners and irresponsible behavior. Looking back on it, perhaps we should have. But my dad was so pissed, he didn’t want anything more to do with them that evening. He just said screw it, and paid.
Turns out, a lot of AoSHQ morons have similar stories to share. By consensus, this was apparently the threadwinner.
Crazy lib SIL is always bitching about the one per cent and then expecting, neigh demanding we pay airfare, rental cars, hotel bills, groceries, vacations, etc. She even expects us to pay for her daughters college.
Rather than take the train from NYC to New Jersey to visit us, she demanded hubby get her a limo. When her mother, my MIL had strokes and couldn’t take a previously planned vacation, she took it
You read these stories, and consider your own experience with leftists, and you can understand why Sandra Fluke… a woman whose sole political agenda is “somebody else should pay for my birth control” … is a Democrat heroine.
It’s 11 PM on a Saturday night in the nation’s capitol. The scene is an Argentinian steakhouse, and the observer has been seated next to a a foursome of very loud people. Then, this happens.
“I want the tasting menu,” says one of the lady guests; the waiter regrets to inform that the whole table must partake (so as not to mess up the kitchen). The waiter departs for a moment while the couples decide what they want to do; springing to her defense, the gallant gentlemen assure that they are more than happy to also partake of the tasting menu. The waiter returns and takes their order, telling them (as my waiter had told my wife and I) that if you see something you like on the menu, just let him know and he’ll see if the chefs can work it in.
“I’m a vegetarian,” she says, and you can see the waiter (at the Argentinian steakhouse) stiffen a bit. “So if you could make all the dishes fish or vegetables, that’d be wonderful.” Confused—punch drunk, almost, at the audacity of the thing—the waiter stumbles away to consult with the chef. He comes back moments later with a compromise: They’ll allow her to skip the chef’s tasting menu if everyone else still wants to partake. It doesn’t make any economic sense, you see, for her to do it this way. She’d be better off just ordering veggies individually.
Miffed, she dismisses the waiter again. How dare they make the vegetarian feel unwelcome at the “contemporary Argentine steakhouse”! “I just wish the chef would do his job!” is the last thing I hear the outraged woman say.
So, basically, this woman walked into a steakhouse and insisted that everyone had to change the rules and accommodate her because her vegetarianism was so morally superior that it trumped everyone else’s comfort and established customs. And she was outraged at their unwillingness to accommodate her whims; because everyone else’s job, you see, is to accommodate her ego.
Metaphor for liberalism anyone?
What struck me, reading the lefty responses to a tweet in support of Israel, is just how childish the lefty position on Israel is.
The moderate left position (the hard left position on Israel being indistinguishable from Stormfront’s) seems to be “Of course, Israel should be allowed to defend itself but only if no one gets hurt, not even accidentally.” (This is the expressed position of the Obama Administration, which mouths moderate left rhetoric even though it is ideologically hard left.)
This position is so unrealistic it’s childish. It is literally something a child might wish for; because it is childish to believe that wants can be fulfilled without effort, and that actions can take place without consequences. They want some kind of magical war where Israel can defend itself from barbarians hiding behind children without hurting anyone.
Lefties apparently confuse “Iron Dome” with “Ironman.” The latter is a movie, lefties. Not real.
And the mainstream press practices their own form of moderate left camouflage. Their true hard left ideology tells them that all the conflict in the world is the result of oppressors taking from the oppressed. But in order to not be so obviously Marxist, they have to default the childish, moderate left position, that there really aren’t any bad guys among nations, and that each side must be equally wrong and culpable in any conflict. They don’t report the barbarism of Palestinians… using children as human shields, or shooting rockets loaded with ball bearings and razor blades at Israeli schools. To truly and honestly report on the barbarity of the Palestinians would violate the moderate left dogma that neither side in any conflict is morally superior to the other.
Very, very immature people are in charge of the USA at this juncture. Want proof? Here’s your proof.
Mark Morford was the “journalist” who offered, in 2008, that Obama was “The Lightworker.”
“Many spiritually advanced people I know identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment.”
Much to the GOP’s bitter revulsion, it turns out a calm, intellectual black man really can run an entire country – certainly far better than an inarticulate Texas bumbler, and even in the face of what is easily the most obstructionist, hateful, acidic and often downright racist Congress in modern memory. Quite an achievement, really.
Commenter Steve notes that a shooting at the SFO Gay Pride parade has been blamed on people who had nothing to do with the actual shooting.
Three suspects from the East Bay have been implicated in connection with a shooting in San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood that injured a woman, police said Thursday.
Kawme Williams, 18, of Oakland; Robert Smith, 20, of Hayward; and a 15-year-old Antioch boy were taken into custody after the shooting, which happened at the close of the Pride parade and celebration about 6:30 p.m. Sunday, police said.
The article doesn’t provide the race/ethnicity of the shooters…. which means, we can all safely assume the race/ethnicity of the shooters.
In the very first comment, a left-liberal nutjob blames republicans and the NRA.
How many senseless gun deaths and injuries will be enough for republicans and the NRA?
Until the left can actually find an actual Republican NRA member who commits a hate crime, they’ll just have to continue blaming them all by proxy.
When a viewpoint (leftism) goes against reason, logic and civil society – when its basic doctrine is in essence an attack on the rights of the individual – we should expect at least some of its adherents to be rude, “entitled” people in the encounters of daily life. Because the person and the viewpoint gravitate toward each other. Leftism fundamentally denies other people’s rights to life, liberty and property. Therefore, committed leftists should tend – not always, but on average and over time – tend to be unreasonable people who disrespect others.
It’s much better to laugh at these people than to feel upset by them. Consider this an open thread for posting your own favorite “ridiculous leftie encounter” stories, in the comments.
I’ll start with a very little one, that just happened. Picture a large gym, a bank of 12 large TVs shared by many exercise stations. Ridiculous Leftie is exercising in front of TV #4. She watches #4 intently, with perhaps an occasional glance to TVs 3 or 5. TV #2 is far out of her field of vision, and clearly nothing that she’s watching. So she won’t mind if I change it, as I’m about to work in front of #2. I pick a sports channel. Oops! TV #2 had been set to MSNBC, and she’s a Ridiculous Leftie who must dictate everything that happens. She stops exercising and strides to the far wall just to change #2 back to MSNBC, glaring at me with vicious hostility. And then – get this – she *still* doesn’t watch it. (Probably since she would have had to strain her neck, to keep it up for long; or do even liberals dislike MSNBC?)
The story ended OK for me (I did speak with her and have reason prevail) but that’s enough. Tell yours!
Twice in the last couple of weeks, leftists have compared something Conservatives believe in to being tantamount to supporting child pornography.
“Are you against anti-child pornography laws?” Schumer asked of Cruz, who was not present in the chamber at the time. “Is he against anti-child pornography laws? Is he an absolutist?” Schumer continued.
And of course, the left-wing media took their cue, as Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart decided to compare support for the Second Amendment and support for the Washington Redskins to support for Child Pornography.
And this all makes perfect sense to the left. If you think political speech should not be regulated by Congress, you must support child rape. If you support a Constitutional, Human Right of self-defense, you must support child rape. If you support
It’s a strategy that has served the left perfectly well so far. Are you opposed to Government-run health care? You must be a racist who hates blacks. Do you think voters should have to show ID to protect the integrity of the vote? You must be a racist who hates blacks. Do you think people should pay for their own contraception? You, sir, are practically a rapist.
And these idiotic ad hominems work. Good Lord, we have a stupid, stupid electorate.
The Left: “The Right is questioning the swap of terrorists for Bergdahl. Therefore, rather than exercising any capacity for critical thought whatsoever, we will automatically and unquestioningly support Obama’s policy.”
The Republicans’ audacity here is a bit beyond the usual. Let’s face it: There is no question that if President George W. Bush or a President McCain or President Romney had secured Bergdahl’s release in exchange for five Taliban prisoners at Gitmo, Republicans would be defending the move all the way. That business about notifying Congress? They’d have a dozen excuses for it. We got our prisoner of war home, they’d all be saying. That’s what matters.
But of course, that doesn’t matter to the right. No one outside their base cares much about Benghazi, but that hasn’t stopped them. They’ll keep pursuing Benghazi mostly to see if they can pin anything on Hillary, but when it comes to wet impeachment dreams, Benghazi may have just been pushed to the back seat. The crazy never stops.
Is there anything on Earth easier than being a Leftist?
The Left is making an intensive effort to change mentally-ill spree killer Elliot Rodger into a caricature that will better enable the agenda of disarming law-abiding citizens and demonizing White Males. Whatever the real Elliot Rodger was, the Narrative has decided that he is a misogynistic right-winger representing the White Patriarchal Rape Culture.
Just like the left created the myth of that nice, 12-year-old Honor Student, Trayvon Martin, an innocent who was brutally gunned down by a trigger-happy White Supremacist on his way home after buying some Skittles to further… well, essentially to further the same agenda.
Mythologies require archetypes, not real, actual people. It is highly inconvenient to the left that Mr. Rodger subscribed to a left-wing YouTube Channel and that three of his victims were men. Also, three of his victims, apparently, were killed with knives. But the Truth will not serve to advance the Left’s Agenda. Hence, all power to The Narrative.
According to the Praetorian Media, the #BringBackOurGirls hashtag diplomacy was a smashing success and a testament to the brilliance of the Obama Administration. They have made this totally unbiased determination on the basis that… millions of people in North America, Europe, and Africa used the #BringBackOurGirls hashtag on Twitter.
See? It totally worked, you guys.
“But the girls haven’t been brought back,” you say. “But Boko Haram (not a terrorist organization according to Hillary Clinton’s State Department) is still running amok and killing people,” you said. You insist on using the conservative, racist, heteronormative, intolerant, cisgendered, patriarchal, capitalist, extremists standard that a strategy has to accomplish something material in order to be a success.
By that standard, you probably think Obamacare is a failure just because it hasn’t lowered health care costs, expanded consumer choice, or insured all the people who were uninsured, but instead has made things worse across the board.
That’s because you, bigot, don’t understand how success is supposed to be measured. “Accomplishments” just make people who don’t have accomplishments feel bad. The only real measure of success, in ProgressiveWorld, is getting large numbers of people to nod along with you; or very, very small numbers provided they are the right people.
Even if all the girls were beheaded the next day and their bodies tossed in a ditch, the left could still claim success because “that #hashtag sold, dammit!”
The American system of higher education has become fundamentally anti-intellectual. Universities offer ridiculous courses on Lada Gaga and Tupac Shakur, entire majors are devoted to useless nonsense like Gender Studies, faculty demands that persons be jailed for holding unpopular opinions, student mobs keep politically incorrect speakers off-campus. Too add to the anti-intellectual atmosphere of the contemporary American campus, there is now a demand that teaching materials contain warning labels advising of politically offensive content.
“Trigger warnings” are the latest crusade on campus, reports the NYT. Students at prominent colleges and universities have been campaigning to force professors to warn students of potentially disturbing or offensive content in the course materials they assign. That could include everything from a violent movie to the anti-Semitic Merchant of Venice. The NYT:
The warnings, which have their ideological roots in feminist thought, have gained the most traction at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where the student government formally called for them. But there have been similar requests from students at Oberlin College, Rutgers University,the University of Michigan, George Washington University and other schools.
Because college is the last place a person should have to be confronted with opinions or ideas that challenge them.
The Big Serious Left-Wing Issue of the day: Are Tampons Anti-Feminist?
“Part of the stigma is the need to hide [the menstrual blood] right away and not feel it against your body,” Johnston-Robledo says, and adds that she thinks women who are more comfortable with their bodies “would be more likely to use products where you really have to look at and interact with your fluid as opposed to clogging your body with a tampon and just tossing it into the toilet.”
They consider this serious business, but they consider getting to the truth of Benghazi a joke.
The behavior of adult liberals is akin to that of middle-school girls. It can be seen, for example, in the Obama Administration’s #Hashtag diplomacy; they really believe that terrorists and dictators can be moved to change their behavior by peer pressure. “Stay out of Ukraine, Mr. Putin, or you can forget about going to the pool party with the cool kids.” “Real Men Don’t Pay For Girls, Mr. Boko Haram. Everybody thinks the whole kidnapping thing is just major uncool, but, whatever.”
If the stories coming out about the behavior of supposedly adult managers and reporters at the New York Times are factual, liberal adults really do act like spoiled tween girls.
Gossipy, catty, insular, cliquey, stressful, immature, cowardly, moody, underhanded, spiteful—the New York Times gives new meaning to the term “hostile workplace.” What has been said of the press—that it wields power without any sense of responsibility—is also a fair enough description of the young adult. And it is to high school, I think, that the New York Times is most aptly compared. The coverage of the Abramson firing reads at times like the plot of an episode of Saved By the Bell minus the sex: Someone always has a crazy idea, everyone’s feelings are always hurt, apologies and reconciliations are made and quickly sundered, confrontations are the subject of intense planning and preparation, and authority figures are youth-oriented, well-intentioned, bumbling, and inept.
And yet this is the same New York Times that day after day, in article after article, instructs its readers, and the country, in how to think, how to vote, what to eat, what to wear, who is in, who is out, what is doubleplus, and what is crimethink. The gall.
The piece goes onto reveal how snubbing an editor or columnist by not sitting at his table in the NYTimes Cafeteria was considered a valid way of expressing peer disapproval.
And then there is… the Moose Incident.
At a 2003 meeting to reassure hundreds of troubled and irate Times staff members that everything was under control, Sulzberger suddenly displayed a stuffed toy moose. “He commented that unhappy Times employees should ‘talk to the moose,’ ‘deal with the moose,’” wrote one journalist, “and he also urged employees to ‘put their moose on the table.’”
This is the culture of the premier publication of the social and political left in the United States. Explains quite a lot, doesn’t it?
Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of
Munchkinland New York City, doesn’t have to use fossil fuels to heat his massive estate; his ego is plenty sufficient.
Pointing to his work on gun safety, obesity and smoking cessation, he said with a grin: “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.”
I am reminded of a quote from C.S. Lewis.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
But then, what did he know? He was a Christianist.
Paul Ryan recently made the mistake of speaking truth to power and was subsequently forced to grovel and apologize to power because power played the race card.
Ryan, in a conversation with Bill Bennett, linked the problem of welfare dependency to the “tailspin of culture in our inner cities, in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work.”
This simple and obvious truth made all of the usual racist dogs (i.e. the Congressional Black Caucus whose members are largely elected from inner cities blighted by generations of welfare dependency) claimed they heard dog whistles.
This technique of squealing “racism” whenever legitimate criticism is made of Democrat welfare policies has been highly effective at shutting down debate, but it does nothing to change the reality of trans-generational welfare dependency.
Consider this case from the even more welfare-blighted UK, where a man hasn’t worked in over twenty years, has fathered somewhere between 18-27 illegitimate children by multiple mothers, his children and grandchildren are also on welfare and living with him, and the local welfare office is trying to figure out how to get him a larger house to accommodate them all.
None of the children who are of working age have jobs and Mr Rolfe says he relies instead on state handouts like housing benefit and child tax credit to get by.
‘Getting a larger house would mean the world to us. It would mean we could get some peace and space.’He said: ‘I hate to see the children have no space, no privacy. They have nowhere to do their homework so they are doing badly at school.’
Incredibly, Mr Rolfe successfully complained to the Local Government Ombudsman that the property, which he moved into in September 2011, was too small.
In the past, this man would have been called a bum, and no self-respecting woman would have given him the time of day. But thanks to progressive welfare programs, not only is his irresponsibility and promsicuity subsidized by taxes confiscated from those who made better choices; but he has also fathered and grandfathered two generations of children devoid of any work ethic, raised to think collecting welfare is normal.
If the state continues to subsidize bad decisions and punish good decisions, it should come as no surprise that people will make more bad decisions and fewer good decsions. This is truth; Or, as the progressive left calls it, ‘racism.’ Paul Ryan owed an apology to no one for saying it. And the fact that he backed down demonstrates how impossible it has become to turn the ship of state away from the unsustainable and disastrous course it is on.
My long absence from GayPatriot, has been brought on by a few factors, chief among them that I’ve been taking some classes in the evenings and haven’t had much time for blogging, and what little time I have had to spare has been consumed by more going on socially than in the recent past. But beyond that, there has been my general sense of what I wrote about in this post, and called either Obamalaise or Obamanomie, that feeling of depression and listlessness that comes when I consider the sad state of a country that elected Obama not once, but twice and seems more interested in bread and circuses than in seeking actual, workable solutions to the difficult problems that face our country.
Naturally the online leftist rag Salon can’t understand why anyone would feel upset or bothered by the direction of the country in the era of the glorious Obama, and so one of its contributors, Edwin Lyngar, has written a laughable piece about “elderly white rage” which places the blame on that favorite bogeyman of the contemporary left, Fox News. I learned of the article when various liberals and leftists I know–including one I’ve taken to calling a MINO (a moderate in name only)–linked to it on social media. I just glanced past it until one of them approvingly quoted one of the more ridiculous passages from the article.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I am not elderly, nor am I viewer of Fox News. I mostly avoid the whole TV news genre, preferring to get my information from other sources. The full title of the article reads: “I lost my dad to Fox News: How a generation was captured by thrashing hysteria.” The author, who describes himself as “overeducated in the humanities” with both an MFA in Creative Writing from Antioch University (not exactly a bastion of conservative thinkers) and an MA in Writing from the University of Nevada, Reno unwittingly demonstrates the way shallow generalizations count as somehow being deep thought by those who advocate a politically correct perspective.
As I don’t care to be guilty of the same intellectual offense, I’d like to highlight and unpack a few of the article’s more ridiculous claims and observations. Let’s start with the opening paragraph:
Old, white, wrinkled and angry, they are slipping from polite society in alarming numbers. We’re losing much of a generation. They often sport hats or other clothing, some marking their status as veterans, Tea Partyers or “patriots” of some kind or another. They have yellow flags, bumper stickers and an unquenchable rage. They used to be the brave men and women who took on America’s challenges, tackling the ’60s, the Cold War and the Reagan years — but now many are terrified by the idea of slightly more affordable healthcare and a very moderate Democrat in the White House.
Of course GayPatriot readers can see what he’s doing there, but just for the sake of argument, let’s illustrate that he opens by offering a caricature and a generalization about elderly Fox News viewers, conflates Fox News viewers with the Tea Party, accuses them of being filled with “rage,” and then ends by trying to ridicule them as being “terrified by the idea of slightly more affordable healthcare and a very moderate Democrat in the White House.” Say what? That last clause is contains so many misrepresentations and non-sequiturs that it is really rather stunning. Barack Obama is only a moderate Democrat if you are so far to the left already that you can’t see how far his administration has shifted the political status quo towards statist goals. And just because Obamacare was given the Orwellian title “the Affordable Care Act,” doesn’t mean it has anything to do with making healthcare more affordable. Far from it, just ask the many people dropped from insurance who find that their health insurance costs have gone up and their deductibles are now much higher than they were previously. Even those who haven’t had to change insurance are getting less for more costs.
The article continues with an anecdote about the author’s father and an exchange where the writer tells him he shouldn’t watch Fox News:
I enjoyed Fox News for many years, as a libertarian and frequent Republican voter. I used to share many, though not all, of my father’s values, but something happened over the past few years. As I drifted left, the white, Republican right veered into incalculable levels of conservative rage, arriving at their inevitable destination with the creation of the Tea Party movement.
When I finally pulled the handle for Obama in 2012, my father could not believe how far I’d fallen. I have avoided talking politics with him as much as possible ever since. Last week, I invited him to my house for dinner with the express purpose of talking about po
Alec Baldwin, interviewed in a long piece for an obscure website, announces his departure from public life. He is moving to LA, like all other people who loathe publicity and want to live in privacy.
He is angry at the “Gay Department of Justice” for treating him the same way they would a Republican who used ghey slurs instead of giving him the pass he is entitled to as a left-wing progressive. So, like a comment troll who’s been challenged to provide links to Sarah Palin saying she could see Russia from her house, or where in the United States Constitution are listed the budget priorities Congress must fund… , he has flounced off and swore that he won’t be back because his critics are just too mean.
Also, Re: Mr. Piers Morgan, good riddance to bad rubbish. Ponder the irony of a Brit trying to take a former colony’s guns.
I had a lunch discussion recently with two former co-workers. Both of these men are engineers in their 30s who are fairly hard-working, competent and successful, pulling six-figure salaries. In the free and dynamic America of yore, these men would be proud of where their choices in life had taken them. But this is 2014, they are white, and they are MSDNC-watching left-liberals in a “Blue” area.
“Mark” started saying how lucky he feels to be an engineer because the work is physically so much easier and safer than being a field worker or factory hand, and pays more. I agreed, while reminding Mark that the work is mentally exhausting, something much-demanded by society (the market), and something most people wouldn’t even attempt. In other words, reminding Mark that he deserves his salary.
As if to answer me, “Ross” instantly went into a description of himself as “born into privilege”, saying how he had never really chosen anything in his life, but his course has always been determined by the social forces pushing him along and granting him privilege. This was strange, because I know for a fact that Ross works hard, which is a choice right there. So I reminded him of the constant stream of choices that he faces – be it as simple as “go back to work after this lunch, or not?” – and how those choices affect his results, like having a salary or not.
I won’t bore you with too many details. The conversation continued as a debate of Free Will implying self-responsibility and pro-liberty politics, vs. Social Determinism implying “you didn’t build that” and re-distributive, left-wing politics. We didn’t get into politics much; it lurked in the background.
But I want to tell you about the discussion’s ending. Here’s the short version: I was nice enough, yet Ross and Mark were red-faced with anger and embarrassment – because they didn’t “win”. I punctured their bubble.
At first, Ross could not process my point that all people have choices, by which they determine their own success. Asking near-childlike questions, he had me explain the concept over and over. “What if a person is born in poverty?” I’d explain how poverty is indeed a circumstance shaping the person’s life; but they still choose their *response* to it. Poverty may limit a person’s range of choices, but even poor people still face a stream of choices, that only ends when a person dies.
If a poor person joins a gang or develops a drug habit – and sticks with it, in adult life – that’s a series of choices they made. Likewise if, for better success, they work hard to get a G.E.D. and become a shift manager at the local McDonald’s, it is a series of choices they made. Likewise, my life-long self-education has been a choice. Thus I explained.
As Ross caught on, he correctly saw the implication that the McDonald’s shift manager would *deserve* her success being greater than the gang member’s or drug addict’s – just as he, Mark and I each deserve our success. And Ross didn’t like that idea. Smiling his best “Jane, you ignorant slut” type of patronizing smile, he suggested that I was out to rationalize backward, unjust notions.
With a smile right back, I pointed out that nobody was rationalizing anything; my success having come from my hard work and personal choices was not a rationalization, but a fact; and a fact that his determinist philosophy badly needed to deal with. That was the exact moment when Ross turned beet-red.
His words turned sarcastic (suggesting anger), while his voice turned quavery (suggesting anxiety). I could see that Mark, now silent, was also getting red – with a deer-in-the-headlights look of uncertainty around his eyes.
Mind you, nobody raised voices in this discussion; nobody called names or made the least of personal attacks. All I did was display my moral confidence, my certain knowledge that I had earned my success – and imply that Mark and Ross should also be morally self-confident, as they had earned theirs.
My doing that alone, nothing more, made these two men visibly feel both uncertain and violated. The interaction ended there, as we’d run out of time. I think it says a lot about left-liberals.
Lefties live in a world where lack of moral self-confidence is a required personality trait. Humility is not required; leftists usually proclaim their beliefs with arrogant certainty. But among those beliefs is a dogma to the effect that no one, including the leftie, *deserves* to have any confidence or any certainty, since no one is ever better than the worst “poor” criminal out there. Any educated, enlightened person must genuflect and display his official, dogmatic lack of confidence that he could ever be right about anything. THEN he can go on to make arrogant proclamations (provided they are left-wing).
If someone shows a different way of being – if someone thinks differently from the leftie, and has moral confidence in doing so – showing, for example, confidence that her success is deserved – many a leftie will find that person threatening. Tactic A is to smile and patronize the person as benighted; perhaps tactic B would be ridicule. If neither works – if the tables are turned, if the left-liberal’s worldview is punctured or exposed as the hollow thing it is – then the average leftie will go into fear and anger.
The administration—whose latest foray into unobstructed, unlegislated, we’ve-got-this, go-it-aloneism was the fabulously ‘effed up roll-out of HealthCare.gov—is going to make 2014 the year of the Executive Branch takes on the world without the messiness of involving the People’s Branch of the federal government?
This’ll be something to see…
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from The Ranch)