❝I'm for live and let live.
I wish more people were.
You should live your life as you choose. Just don't expect me to celebrate it because it is your life after all. And don't go after your neighbor because of the lawn he planted or the socks he wears or where he spends his Tuesday nights.❞
And she’s absolutely right.
❝Martin Luther King understood this. The Civil Rights movement was a stand against overt government encroachment on the rights of black people. The Southern States, ignoring the Declaration’s acknowledgment that all men inherently possessed civil rights, used the government as a weapon against the black people within its borders. The real problem blacks faced wasn’t that their fellow white citizens behaved hostilely, and even murderously, towards them. Had the government fulfilled its policing responsibilities and stepped forward to protect those citizens, Jim Crow would have been a short-lived phenomenon. The real problem was that Southern government itself encroached on citizens’ freedom.
It was Southern government that legislatively segregated schools, segregated housing, segregated business establishments, segregated marriages and enacted barriers between blacks and ballots. It was Southern government that was a “Form of Government [that had become] destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for black people],” making it the civil “Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
In the sixty years since the Civil Rights movement, the Left has entirely perverted the whole notion of civil rights. Civil Rights as the Founders intended meant the right of all citizens, regardless of race, color, religion, sexual, gender, etc., to be free of government constraints (although the government’s police powers certainly required the government to protect citizens when others amongst them worked to injure them or constrain their basic freedoms). Civil Rights as the Left demands it has become an all powerful government that is responsible for redistribution wealth, property, access to government and even happiness, from whites to blacks.❞
This is the issue.
Institutionalized bigotry should be fought every step of the way.
But individuals are free to be bigots. Just as they are free to be heroes.
You can’t legislate morality.
Do you really want government to decide what is and is not moral?
Think about that carefully.
I’ve been told that my ideas reveal my unconscious bias.
I’ve been told that simply by living my life as I choose, I force others into a world that isn’t fair.
I’ve been told that I can’t quote people if they don’t match my skin color.
I’ve been told that my ideas of justice are antiquated.
I’ve been told that my words are code words for other ideas.
I’ve been told that I must watch carefully lest I hurt someone.
I think those people lied.
I think that by limiting the topics we discuss, those people seek power.
I think that’s why they choose the words we’re “allowed” to say.
I think that’s why they redefine the words as needed.
I think that’s why they pick the people who are allowed to talk.
I am tired of it.
Chris Hernandez had a great piece at The Federalist.
❝Yes, f*** your trauma. My sympathy for your suffering, whether that suffering was real or imaginary, ended when you demanded I change my life to avoid bringing up your bad memories. You don’t seem to have figured this out, but there is no “I must never be reminded of a negative experience” expectation in any culture anywhere on earth.
If your psyche is so fragile you fall apart when someone inadvertently reminds you of “trauma,” especially if that trauma consisted of you overreacting to a self-interpreted racial slur, you need therapy. You belong on a psychiatrist’s couch, not in college dictating what the rest of society can’t do, say, or think. Get your own head right before you try to run other people’s lives. If you expect everyone around you to cater to your neurosis, forever, you’re what I’d call a “failure at life,” doomed to perpetual disappointment.
Oh, I should add: f** my trauma, too. I must be old-fashioned, but I always thought coming to terms with pain was part of growing up. I’ve never expected anyone to not knock on my door because it reminds me of that terrifying morning decades ago. I’ve never blown up at anyone for startling me with a camera flash (I’ve never even mentioned it to anyone who did). I’ve never expected anyone to not talk about Iraq or Afghanistan around me, even though some memories still hurt. I don’t need trigger warnings because a book might remind me of a murder victim I’ve seen.❞
So I am going to call those folks on their victimhood. And I am not going to be nice.
I’m not responsible for their trigger moments. I won’t guard their safe spaces.
It’s time for people to grow up and take responsibility.
Or die waiting for someone to take care of them out of pity.
Power by victimhood depends on the other guy’s guilt.
I thought I had a lot more to say on this. But it’s pretty simple really.
I won’t feed the victimhood anymore.
CNN ATTACKS Duke basketball coach for NOT speaking out against new Indiana Religious Freedom law
❝CNN’s Carol Costello ATTACKED Duke head basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski for refusing to weigh in on the new religious freedom law in Indiana. I’m not kidding. Krzyzewski didn’t come down one way or the other on the law, he simply refused to address it. But because he didn’t fall in line, I guess, with other sports figures condemning the law, CNN does a whole segment attacking him…❞
Everybody's Lost Their Goddamn Mind Over Religious Freedom
❝Nobody should be forced to do something they don’t want to do, whether it’s bake cakes for gay weddings or decorate cakes with anti-gay slurs. To me, whether a person’s or a business’s decision is based in religion is immaterial.
Whatever you may think of Jack Phillips’s refusal to bake a wedding cake for gay customers, there’s something as or more disturbing about the court ruling against the owner of Lakewood, Colorado’s Masterpiece Cakeshop. Not only was the baker forced to change his store policy, he and his staff were required to attend sensitivity training. That sounds like something out of China during the Cultural Revolution. It doesn’t help that Phillips offered to make the original complainants any sort of item but a wedding cake.
Most Americans don’t agree with Phillips’s beliefs in this case, but such disagreements are one of the prices we pay for living in a free society, in which we seriously recognize and respect that different people have different value systems. It’s worth noting that in the segregated South, very different rules applied. It was common, for instance, that local and state governments and laws actively prevented businesses from treating customers equally. When laws were not openly racist, “citizen’s councils” and terror groups such as the Ku Klux Klan enforced a de facto standard against businesses that treated all customers equally. This is not the case today with regards to gays and lesbians.
By the same token, any individuals or businesses that exclude certain sorts of business can’t exactly bitch and moan when people decide to publicize such policies and organize boycotts, as is happening to the entire state of Indiana now.❞
Oh, and speaking of Apple and Tim Cook.
The overblown hypocrisy of Tim Cook's business boycott of Indiana
❝Now, there would be an argument to deny business owners even this little space to live by their spiritual sensibilities if the discriminated individuals couldn't obtain the services they needed elsewhere — as was the case with blacks in the Jim Crow South prior to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But discrimination isn't as institutionalized now as it was then, especially against gays, who have gained rapid acceptance in recent years. If one establishment refuses to service gay customers, there are myriad others that will, imposing no severe hardship on them. To insist on being served by the few people whose beliefs would be violated seems more like a projection of power rather than a plea to secure legitimate rights.
Furthermore, if Cook merely boycotted Christian businesses whose beliefs he found abhorrent, it would be one thing. But what's truly obnoxious about his campaign is that he is using his right not to do business with Indiana, because it's doing something he disagrees with, to obtain a law that would deny Indiana businesses the same right not to do business with folks who they don’t agree with. This is simply intolerance masquerading as a crusade for justice and equality — a naked use of brute market power to legislate his views.❞
Doug Powers may have gone a little overboard with the “snark setting,” but he makes a pretty good point about Tim Cook and Apple too.
Sounds like Apple’s CEO needs to disable the ‘hypocrite’ app on his iPhone
❝Hey, if a theocratic Islamic monarchy can show Indiana how to do religious freedom and gay rights correctly, Apple’s CEO is hot-to-trot for that particular business deal.❞
Here’s the thing.
Americans have the right to discriminate. The right of the people “peaceably to assemble” also means that you don’t have to associate with people you don’t like. If the government doesn’t have the power to force you to attend church, they don’t have the power to keep someone from practicing their religion as they choose so long as it doesn’t injure another. Neither help nor hinder.
If your neighbor doesn’t have the power to control your actions by his beliefs, you don’t have that power either. It’s the parity test again.
I said it before in my True Believer Rant.
In other words, inflict government on someone today, and you shouldn't be surprised if someone inflicts government on you tomorrow.
All these are examples of what I call True Believer Syndrome. The idea is not original with me, heck, Isaac Bonewits spends most of his Cult Danger Evaluation Frame defining exactly what makes a True Believer, and in several of his other essays he details why they can be so dangerous.
But the one thing that I have found in all True Believers is an absolute belief that their particular book, method, faith, interpretation, or silly hat is The Only Acceptable Choice. They will ignore anything that anyone else does if it doesn't adhere totally to The True Way. Worse, they will overlook mistakes and abuses made by the people on the correct side, even as they violate the principles they hold central to their belief.
Or as the old Genesis song goes, "Do as I say, don't do as I do."
I often call True Believers fundies because it gets the point across. At least, to most people.
Lately I've seen a disturbing trend. Both the "right" and "left" have their extremists, but it seems that the leadership on the left is made up mostly of extremists. Most moderates and conservatives seem to be willing to sit down and talk over differences, but that doesn't seem to be true on the "progressive" side. It's a lousy observation to make, but by golly, that is what I see. The "leadership" of the "left" wants to exclude any other possibilities.
The people making the loudest noises about "diversity" are the very ones who want to take it away.❞
Ten years later, and it’s the same thing only with the volume turned up.
Do not mess with the aunts and grandmothers.
❝The clarification confirms a suspicion that many held all along: With up to 100 million people dancing ever-changing routines in squares across the country, state bureaucrats had little chance of imposing order on the activity.
That should bring some relief to the tens of millions of women who rely on their local dance routines for exercise and socializing. Varied in intensity and complexity, the dance routines get the body moving and the heart pumping. (China’s elderly population has a strong tradition of performing freakishly athletic feats in public, although the line dances fall on the less strenuous end of the spectrum.)
Just as important as the exercise, the daily meetups provide retirees with a chance to socialize and to gossip about their children’s jobs and love lives. Chinese families tend to eschew nursing homes, instead often inviting elderly parents and grandparents to come live with the younger generations in the city. With China’s mega-cities lacking the intimacy and familiarity of the villages many elderly citizens grew up in, line dancing can be a perfect icebreaker and social activity.❞
The official titles don’t matter, aunts and grandmothers hold a community together. Don’t mess with that if you want your civilization to grow.
❝I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”
My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.
In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.
The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.❞
— Patrick Moore, Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic
You should read it all, it’s very good.
By the way, Dr. Moore cofounded Greenpeace. That alone should make his environmentalism credentials impeccable. But the man hasn’t stood still. Remember, most progressives admire virtue only if it’s on their side. So Dr. Moore is an apostate in some quarters, despite the fact that he has stood by his principles.
Yep, I’m going to say it.
I told you so.
Assume for a moment that I owned a second hand bookstore. It provides a decent living, but only because I put so much time into it.
One day a new customer walks in. He wants to order ten copies of The Turner Diaries. I politely tell him I don’t carry those books and that’s he’s welcome to find something else on the shelves. He snarls at me and leaves.
Within a week he’s filed a lawsuit against me for discrimination.
Let’s make it a little more complicated.
I go to the Christian bookstore across town. I ask for Adler’s Drawing Down the Moon. I know they should carry it, the chapter on Isaac Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame would be invaluable to ministers and pastors and church leaders. But since it’s a Pagan book, they don’t carry it and won’t order it.
Should I snarl and leave?
Should I sue?
Say I am hiring someone for my bookstore. It comes down to two candidates, a young man who is a little too interested in World of Warcraft and a young lady who doesn’t seem to have learned to cover her nether regions well. If everything else is equal between them, I know I’m going to get and keep more customers with the guy than with the girl.
They may come in to gawk at the gal, but they won’t buy stuff from her. Now if she was dressed neatly and showed respect for herself and the people around her, chances are she could outsell the guy. But if she’s the spectacle and the reason people come in to the store, customers won’t care about the stock.
Should she sue to get a job from me?
We discriminate all the time. We pick that Thai place over the one that’s closer because the food is better. We pick the mattress that works for both sleep and sex. We put our favorite song as a ringtone on our phone.
These are matters of individual choice and they should remain so.
If my neighbor is gay, should he only be allowed to date women? Isn’t he discriminating?
If I buy hamburger, should the National Egg Board sue me so I buy eggs instead?
If I turn left when I come home from the post office, should the merchants on the right side demand that I shop with them?
We can’t let society draw those lines for us.
Personal choice. Personal responsibility. Otherwise it’s slavery by another name.
Now I really want to draw attention to his conclusion that winner-take-all voting results inevitably leading to a two-party system.
I don’t think he has the entire reason, I think inertia and incumbency have at least as much to do with a two party system. But there is no doubt that we end up with a system that’s stacked heavily towards two parties and more and more government intervening with everyday lives.
My own solution would start with None of the Above, but I think CGP Grey’s ideas are worth discussing too.
I also think we need to move away from a centralized election system. We have fifty states, that means we have fifty laboratories to find the ways that work best. Please notice I did not say the best way.
Remember the goal is FREEDOM. If the institutions don’t work towards that goal, we need to get rid of the institutions.
I’ve long since concluded that no one has all the answers or even most of the questions.❞