❝❝If we weren't better than this, this wouldn't bother so many people.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ better than this ∙ cross posted

❝❝When someone starts offering two and only two alternatives, that's the cue to look for the fourth, fifth, and sixth choices.❞❞

— NeoWayland NeoNote — Abortion is not about women's rights

Tags: maxims ∙ two and only two ∙ cross posted

❝❝Measure a man in the lives he touched.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ man ∙ lives they touch

❝❝Rather than citing examples of "rightness" being a mental illness, I think I will just cite the old idiom Moderation in all things.

I will say that from my perspective it's not "right" or "left" that is wrong per se, but the desire to control others while avoiding the consequences of your own actions. The reasons and the justifications change, not the actions.

---

Just where do you think the "left" learned the self-righteous, sanctimonious posturing?

Frankly, I don't care who did it first, second, or most recently. Or what the scoreboard says.

You're playing the game, perpetuating the problem. And I have absolutely no assurance that if "your guys" win, my life will be better. Just your promises, which are worth exactly nothing based on past experience.

After all, you've just admitted that you can't stand dissent and disagreement.

---

If I've no investment in the ideology and your side "breaks the rules" to suppress dissent, then there is no benefit for me to support "the system" no matter which side "wins."

I'd be better off bringing down the whole mess and helping people pick up the pieces afterwards.

That's the stakes you're playing for. Not if your side wins, but if there will be a game left to play, or even if there will be recognizable sides.

So thought experiments aside, are you willing to play with these stakes?

---

The rules of the game mean you can't win. Neither can they. Oh, each side trades advantage with the other, but the conflict goes on and feeds on itself.

That's not being heroic, that's being damn stupid. What good does it do to protect the widows and orphans when there is no safe place to go?

---

Of course there are rules of the game, number one being winner take all. Number two being that the "truth" of the argument is determined by the winner of the conflict. Number three is that winning the conflict grants the power to silence dissent. Number four is that the conflict is far too important to allow ordinary people to ask questions.

This isn't Darwin, this isn't the nature of man, this is an artificial construct.

Should I go on?

I never claimed that I didn't answer. I implied you were asking the wrong questions. When anyone reduces things to an either/or premise, that is usually the case.

---

There you go again, assuming the only response is either/or.

You think winning is the answer.

I want to remove the possibility of either side winning and starting the conflict all over again.

Because after you win, after you put down your sword and gun, after you take a deep breath on the field of battle, I and those like me will be there.

Pointing at you.

Laughing.

And you won't be able to touch us.

Sometimes you don't have to win. Sometimes it's enough to keep the other guys from crossing the finish line and claiming their bloodstained glory.

---

If you think the socialists winning means that the President, Congress, and the courts have unrestrained power, then you already lost.

And they have exactly as much power over you as you choose to give them.

---

Either/or is a self-imposed trap. It presupposes that there are two and only two alternatives.

The greatest single expansion of the Deep State was signed into law by a Republican.

---

Would it help you understand my point if I (truthfully) told you that since a month or two after the handoff, I've said that Hong Kong will be remembered in history as the City That Ate A Country?

---

It's not a matter of free market DNA. It's the fact that Hong Kong has the most capitalist and competitive society on the face of the planet.

I agree we're talking at cross purposes. You see it as all wrapped up and I see a Gordian knot. In the case of Hong Kong, a free Hong Kong has a greater value than the Chinese military.

But for now, let's agree that we do disagree and move on.

---

And that is when you change the game.

---

Did you accept the rule set before you started playing?

---

Well, that is a interesting philosophical premise.

I'd agree that for most purposes, there appears to be an objective reality. From my purely subjective perspective of course. But pursuing that goes way beyond our conversation here.

Are the units autonomous? Well, that's another philosophical bit. For example, is the planet aware? Restricting our conversation to humans, are humans autonomous? I'd have to say that most individuals are not. No matter what the politics.

Are humans and specifically "leftists" dangerous? They can be, and mostly want to be. Are they more dangerous than "rightists?"

No.

As I said political orientation isn't the problem. Politics is.

---

I prefer Nolan's chart to the right-left dichotomy.

Politics is controlling the other.

I've spent a lifetime dealing with those who want to control others. Some do in the name of environmentalism, some do in the name of Divine moral authority, some do it for the "greater good." The justification changes, but the methods don't.

---

One of my biggest frustrations in today's politics is that people overlook what "their" side does even as they denounce the "other" side for doing the exact same thing.

We've reached the point where what is done is not nearly as important as who did it.

Meanwhile liberty takes a hit.

---

*shrugs*

My problem here is once you've won, then what? Especially if in victory you claim power and authority that you never should have had.

Earlier you told me that if the socialists won in 2020, I'll personally lose. My response was to point out that if the EEEEEVVVIIILLLL forces of government already had power to screw me on some technocrat's or politico's whim, then there is no point in me supporting your side because freedom is already gone.

Sure, you promise to fix it, you promise to Do The Right Thing, and I should believe that why?

““The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.””

— H.L. Mencken

---

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan between them escalated the "War On Drugs" and enabled the narco-state. Mandatory minimum sentences were made possible by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Wide scale civil forfeiture including sharing funds and proceeds with local police agencies was made legal by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The 1208 program and the militarization of local police dates to 1990, although it was changed to the 1033 program and was expanded in 1996. The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law by Bush League.

This is only a small portion of things that have happened on a Federal level.

I ask for nothing except the freedom to live my life as I choose while accepting responsibility for my choices.

Who is the "right" to deny me those things?

---

I'm going to point out again that you're willing to overlook the abuses of "your guys" while going after the "other guys."

I want less government than absolutely necessary. What I see is a long history of Republicans and conservatives who want to expand government, regulation, and spending. The Deep State owes just as much to Republicans than to Democrats.

I don't care who is "in charge." I don't care who is to blame.

I want less government than absolutely necessary.

---

I gave specific examples of Republicans abusing power in ways that rival anything that Democrats have done or will do.

You are stuck on the label when you should be looking at the institution.

---

“Nothing R's have done in your lifetime can compare to the damage of the D's.”

Watergate.

Ford's pardoning of Nixon.

Ford's "Hail Mary" pass to save the CIA and his nomination of George H.W. Bush to director. Since it was before my birth, we'll ignore the rumors about Bush's CIA related activities between 1959 and 1964. Also before my time but I'm doing extra credit, the question remains why Bush was pretty much the one American in his generation who could not "remember" where he was on November 22, 1963.

Iran-Contra.

Changing of banking laws and regulations during the early 1980s, leading to the savings and loan crisis, the eradication of regional banks, and the consolidation of American banks and investment firms into selected giants.

The USA PATRIOT Act, literally the climax of decades old Deep State wet dreams. Start with Inslaw and PROMIS, look at the Danny Casolaro murder, and then look at what has happened the last twenty years.

I could go on and on. I haven't even touched on what happened with the Contract With America, or how the leaders of both major parties colluded and conspired against the Tea Party.

The vice or virtue is not in the label. Democrats and the left are not especially evil. Republicans and conservatives don't get a free pass because they are doing the wrong thing for the "right" reasons.

I wanted to make this about government, the abuse of power and politics in general. You were the one making the case that Democrats and the left were irredeemably evil while Republicans and conservatives were mostly good.

---

First, stop blaming "leftists" for the evils of government.

Second, accept that the label Republican, conservative, or "rightist" doesn't make you saints or even the best qualified.

When you've done that, I'm ready to talk about the next bit.

---

I gave you examples, including Republicans who actively broke the law.

As for Republicans being the lesser evil, is there a one of them since Eisenhower who did anything other than go through the motions?

---

Start by admitting it is a government problem and not a Republican or Democrat situation.

Stop making excuses because some of your interests happen to line up at the time.

Until you do that, you're not ready to have this conversation.

---

You're treating a premise as an Article of Faith Not To Be Questioned.

As long as you hold onto that, you won't believe what I say or accept any solution that I propose. Because under that premise, it's absolute nonsense and can't possibly be anything else.

Or the premise is invalid.

---

That is not true.

There has to be a commonality to build on, especially for deeply held beliefs.

For example, I don't think humans need to be saved. So talking to me about a guy nailed to a cross isn't really going to resonate. Likewise, unless you accept anthropogenic climate change, the notion of a climate crisis won't make sense.

As for giving my views and the solutions, I have.

---

“There has to be rationality.”

Since when? Empires have risen and fallen without rationality. Trade agreements have been negotiated without rationality. Probably fewer than ten percent of Americans living right now are rational by any definition except they obey the rules they've been given.

Just to point it out again, I have stated the problem and the solution repeatedly. You reject the premise and therefore don't believe me. Government is the problem, even if it is a "friendly" government controlled by people you like. As long as you look to government for solutions, you make the problem worse.

Case in point, you've mentioned several times that we need to remove the left ideology from public schools and universities. Our public school system was created in part so that government could control what was taught. Did it never occur to you that as long as schools were publicly funded and government controlled, you can never remove the ideas that you don't like? Rather than taking control of schools and universities, maybe the answer is let the schools compete in a free market. The schools that can deliver value will thrive, the others won't. It's worked for everything from rye flour to smartphones, there is no reason to think it wouldn't work incredibly well for schools.

---

I haven't said anything about moral equivalence.

I just don't think that we should trust politicos to store and transport nuclear sludge in Hefty bags.

Don't tell me about the "virtues" of Republicans. Tell me why, despite their claimed support of smaller government, they haven't done anything substantial since JFK.

And he was a Democrat.

---

You've been telling me how virtuous the Republicans are. I'm telling you that based on their behavior, they aren't. There's less than a handful of effective Republican politicos on a national level who demonstrate honor and character. It's not because they are Republicans, it's because they have honor and character.

I gave you specific, catastrophic, and freedom destroying examples of highly placed Republicans turning government against the people. Some were felonies, and some weren't felonies only because no one had enacted laws against them yet.

I have offered solutions, you just don't like what I offered since it doesn't give conservatives legal and "moral" advantages that can be exploited against "leftists" because they are leftists.

“Just as we don't want other ideals imposed on us, we shouldn't impose our ideals on others. No matter how convinced we are that we are right.”

“The only thing they are really giving up is the power to compel behavior in others.”

You can't depend on government to do it for you.

---

Before Trump, who was doing it?

After Trump, who will continue doing it?

And that is assuming that Trump is a net benefit, something I do not believe.

All I've said is that Republicans aren't saints or "the better choice" because they are Republicans. The evidence supports my claims.

You've said that Democrats are more inherently more evil than Republicans. The evidence doesn't support your claims.

Show me people of honor and character and I will consider supporting them.

Show me Republicans and I will insist on honor and character. Show me Democrats and I will insist on honor and character. The label doesn't get a pass.

A man is measured in the lives he touched.

---

BTW, mandatory minimums, civil forfeiture of property without criminal convictions, and the militarization of police are hardly minor, superficial issues.

---

Your entire argument boils down to government is worse with Democrats in charge.

My argument is that government threatens liberty and rights no matter who is "calling the shots."

I gave you specific examples during Republican presidencies that have led to massive abuse of power.

I am not saying that Republicans are as bad as Democrats. I am saying that government is bad and it's time we reduced it's power and scope.

Otherwise we're fighting over who gets to be in charge with no evidence that Republicans are better or Democrats are better.

---

As long as we have government, let's make it too small to screw up our lives.

We have conditioned generations to believe that government is all wise and mostly benevolent. That government is the first, best, and last solution. That any problem can be fixed with more money and government expertise.

Provided no one asks inconvenient questions.

Me, I think government is radioactive and corrosive. I think it is occasionally useful in extreme circumstances but only if it is behind thirteen layers of protection. I think the risks of invoking government outweigh the benefits by several orders of magnitude.

And I do not trust anyone to use it wisely.

As far as the criminal abuse of the alphabet agencies, why do you think it began with Obama against Trump?❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ right ∙ Left ∙ game ∙ ideology ∙ break the rules ∙ Hong Kong ∙ City That Ate A Country ∙ objective ∙ subjective ∙ H.L. Mencken ∙ Richard Nixon ∙ Ronald Reagan ∙ War on Drugs ∙ narco-state ∙ mandatory minimum sentences ∙ Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 ∙ 1208 program ∙ militarize police ∙ 1033 program ∙ your guys ∙ other guy ∙ label ∙ institutions ∙ Gerald Ford ∙ CIA ∙ George H. W. Bush ∙ USAPATRIOT ∙ Iran-Contra ∙ Inslaw ∙ PROMIS ∙ Danny Casolaro ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ public schools ∙ universities ∙ politicos ∙ Donald Trump ∙ good ∙ evil

““I have no desire to make windows into men's souls.””

— Elizabeth I

Tags: Elizabeth I ∙ privacy ∙ souls

❝❝A terrifyingly surprising number of police officers also have "incidents of domestic abuse in their background." Not most to be sure, but the field seems to draw some really f…ed up people. Worse, police are legally shielded from the consequences of their own actions.

If the current "red flag law" proposals are any indication, almost all the criteria will certainly be political. Considering that most people including psychiatrists and psychologists are incapable of judging competence, motives, or morality without some intense analysis, that is asking for trouble.

Here's what you do not want to acknowledge. Most people are not criminal. Most gun owners don't casually shoot other people or property. And there is not a single background check that will prevent every possible mass shooter.

Now I could go on and on. I could point out that American gun laws originated to keep guns out of the hands of "blacks". I could list the puppycide incidents. I could point out the militarization of police, especially in the "War on Drugs." All of this overlooks one very simple thing. The Second Amendment exists because the Founders did not trust government.

All your suggestions, all your proposals, everything you've said will arm more government agents while making the populace unarmed. Tell me, do you want Trump's government heavily armed while you are not?❞❞

Tags: Second Amendment ∙ red flag law ∙ background checks ∙ War on Drugs ∙ government

❝❝If government is not a net benefit, then the question “What can government do?” changes to “How do we limit costs?”❞❞

— NeoWayland, liberty question

Tags: maxims ∙ economics ∙ government ∙ costs ∙ libertarian

Biochar: A better start to rain forest restoration

““An indigenous farming technique that’s been around for thousands of years provides the basis for restoring rain forests stripped clear of trees by gold mining and other threats.

A carbon-based soil amendment called biochar is a cheap and effective way to support tree seedling survival during reforestation efforts in the Amazon rain forest, according to new research from Wake Forest University’s Center for Amazonian Scientific Innovation (CINCIA).

Restoring and recovering rain forests has become increasingly important for combatting climate change, since these wide swaths of trees can absorb billions of tons of carbon dioxide each year. The problem is particularly acute in areas mined for alluvial gold deposits, which devastate not only rain forest trees but also soils. High costs can be a huge barrier to replanting, fertilizing and nurturing trees to replace those lost in the rain forest.

The scientists found that using biochar combined with fertilizer significantly improved height and diameter growth of tree seedlings while also increasing the number of leaves the seedlings developed. The experiment, based in a Peruvian Amazon region called Madre de Dios, the heart of illegal gold mining trade in that country, used two tropical tree species: the fast-growing Guazuma crinita and Terminalia amazonia, a late successional tree often used as timber.””
     — Alicia Roberts

Tags: clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Alicia Roberts ∙ Alicia Roberts ∙ biochar ∙ ecology ∙ CINCIA ∙ rain forest ∙ Amazon ∙ Wake Forest University ∙ cross posted ∙ Technopagan Yearnings

If we're going to have a conversation, these facts must be a part of that.

Tags: clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Reason Online ∙ Ronald Bailey ∙ GDP ∙ Journal of Economic Growth ∙ regulations ∙ income ∙ John Dawson ∙ Appalachian State University ∙ John Seater ∙ North Carolina State ∙ Federal government

““Organized Religion and Organized Crime are two sides to the same coin. They both want to control you and they do it through fear. Organized crime threatens you with death of yourself and your loved ones; organized religion threatens you with eternal damnation.””

— Kalinysta

Tags: cross posted ∙ Kalinysta ∙ Technopagan Yearnings ∙ organized religion ∙ organized crime ∙ fear

If we're going to have a conversation, these facts must be a part of that.

Tags: guns ∙ gun control ∙ laws ∙ violence ∙ mass shootings ∙ gun laws

❝❝It's not that capitalism produces no losers, it's that the free market produces fewer losers by a couple of orders of magnitude.

Notice that I am distinguishing between capitalism and the free market.

Again, I'm talking about a "bottom-up" self-organizing exchange versus a "top-down" system imposed by force. In a free market, the way to get ahead is providing what others want. In any other system, it's about controlling the system.

ANY artificial controls will be exploited by the most powerful at the expense of the weaker. Resources are diverted into controlling the rules rather than producing value.

"Moral obligations" will be used to shut competition out of the marketplace in the name of compassion, and it will be backed by government force, diverting still more resources away from the market and into government and control.

The free market has only one real justification, it has produced more wealth and more freedom for more people than anything else we have tried. The key is individual choice, not controlling the system.

In a free market, competition keeps us honest and choice is the only control that works.

---

The two most important phrases in human history:

“Let me help.”

“I can do better than that!”

---

It's not the tools, it's the results.

The free market is an example of people choosing for themselves. Government is controlling people by force.

And yes, the world is changing. It's embracing choice. That doesn't mean that the politicos and technocrats will give up power willingly. But they can't control everything that happens. Who could have foreseen the world wide web, Snicker's bars, or topless maid services? What government agency would have tolerated those things? What Congress critter would have sponsored legislation creating flash mobs, radar detectors, or fantasy football?

I want more freedom for more people today. I want more of the same tomorrow. Choice is the best way to get freedom. That's it, plain and simple. That's my objective.

---

See, you're still talking politics. "Arrange." "Cap." That's about controlling others, implying that government force will be involved sooner or later.

Why should their choice control my action? Why should my choice control your action? Why should your choice control their action?

It's not about creating the framework or tweaking the system. They've got something I want, so I have to find something they want. Voluntary exchanges between consenting adults, and no third party taking a cut or dictating rules.

---

Freedom and wealth. The Apaches could not produce steel knives, antiseptics, or a horseshoe. In one sense they were free, but they didn't have wealth. What freedom and wealth they had was taken at the expense of others.

Freedom taken at the expense of someone else is privilege and is generally recognized as a Bad Thing. Perhaps the keystone to Western Civilization is the Ethic of Reciprocity. This is what makes freedom more than a privilege grab. It also can't be imposed by another.

I'm proposing that the free market makes freedom and wealth possible while making things mostly better today than they were yesterday. So we have steel tools, paracord, duck tape, battery drills, and lights at the flick of a switch. These and seven million and thirteen other things weren't even a possibility with a hunter/gatherer culture.

Freedom is only one part of the payoff.

---

Nice things result in greater freedom.

I grow stuff in my garden, but that is not my source of food. I can go to the grocery store and find a wider variety of fruits and vegetables than I could ever hope to grow myself. My choices are increased by the store, and it couldn't happen without the free market.

A few years back I was looking at an aquaponics set-up. Beyond the design and construction, it would have taken about twenty hours a week and between two and three hundred dollars more per month. And that is if everything went right and I never left town.

Is it necessary that I use the supermarket? No, but it's a better use of my time and resources than if I tried to do it on my own. It lets me use the labor and skills of others at a minimal cost to myself.❞❞

Tags: losers ∙ capitalism ∙ bottom up ∙ self-organizing ∙ exchange ∙ top down ∙ force ∙ system ∙ resources ∙ moral obligations ∙ competition ∙ compassion ∙ wealth ∙ let me help ∙ I can do better than that

❝❝Neo-paganism has nothing to do with devaluing human life. The term neo-pagan is a recent invention and has nothing to do with morality.

Honestly, Mrs. Bookworm, have you ever known me to devalue human life? Have you ever seen me treat anyone disrespectfully unless they disrespected me or someone else first? Yet I am a neopagan under the scholarly definition. I greet the sunrise. I dance naked under the full Moon. I've written and spoken against war, blood sacrifice, and coercion.

The fact is there is no monolithic morality among neopagans. Even most neopagans can't agree what the term means except in the broadest terms.

Neopagan and pagan are not slur words. I'd be happy to answer any general questions I can, or find you someone who can if I can't. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, I'd appreciate it if I could expect the same.

---

That may be true. But using pagan or neopagan as a way to describe low morality is unacceptable. Mrs. Bookworm and others here would not accept a slur like this against Jews or Christians.

I'm not asking anyone to participate. I'm just asking for the same respect that they themselves expect.

---

For what it is worth, I'd say that modern pagans are less tolerant of others who insist that their faith/belief system/rule set must dominate.

Sometimes the trick is convincing them that the nasty ole conservative Christians aren't always or even usually the enemy.

---

There we get into "no True Scottsman."

Just as an example, I can promise you that the first century Christian was a considerably different creature than his sixth century counterpart. Just as the eighteenth century version was very different. And how the early twentieth century version differed from the late twentieth, or even the twenty-first century incarnation. And that doesn't even allow for all the various sects.

The way I see it, faith is between you and the Divine. No one else.

❝I call myself pagan because I don't have a better term. I'm polytheistic and pantheistic. On alternate Thursdays and every third Tuesday I might admit to an animism bent as well. On the 13th of the month, I'll tell you (truthfully) that the label isn't really all that important, only the manifestation.❞

By most modern standards, I'm pagan. Certainly in the sense that I look for Divine manifestation outside of an official Book. Some of my stuff came by way of the new age fluffiness, sure. Some of it also came from gnosticism and the silence of a desert dawn. Does that make it less valid for me than yours is for you?

I'm not something less. I'm something else.

---

But is it better than being a gun toting redneck?

See, people today like to forget, but pagans invented civilization. And trade. And philosophy.

The Visigoths weren't intent on destroying civilization as much as they were controlling it.

---

The problem with the Visigoths wasn't that they were pagan. The problem is that they wanted to control others. We have the same kind of people today, and they are just as destructive. The issue isn't paganism, it's politics. Just as it is for certain Christians today.

BTW, my mother was born in Louisiana, my maternal grandfather was born in Tennessee, and my stepdad's family is from Arkansas. I'd put my redneck bona-fides up against any one else's.

---

For those interested in conspiracy theory, the Merovingian dynasty was the "Holy Grail" proposed by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. That is, the bloodline supposedly descended from Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. If this sounds familiar, Dan Brown lifted it for The Da Vinci Code. This may be the justification of the divine right of the European royals, although there is a (disputed) theory about a sacred king being a sacrifice.

This gets murky real fast, especially since many non-Western royals also trace their descent from gods.

Anyway, I've confuzzled things enough for now.

---

Not to mention that it wasn't unusual for the same sacred sites to be reused again and again and again, which raises the question of who or what was originally worshipped. And so on, and so forth…

Getting back to your point though, yes the Visigoths were pretty civilized. And yes they were pagan only in the sense that they weren't part of the Officially Approved variant faith at the time.

Traditionally, before someone goes after another faith, they always stomp out their own heresies. It's about the politics and who gets to call the shots, not about the purity of faith.

And of course that never happens in pagan faiths.

*ahem*

I might have set off the exaggeration alarm there.❞❞

— comments from No. 4 Bookworm Room Podcast: The Second Amendment, Morality, and Kindness

Tags: cross posted ∙ Bookworm ∙ pagan ∙ neopagans ∙ slur words

““If I have learned one thing from life, it is that race is the engine that drives the political Left. When all else fails, that segment of America goes to the default position of using race to achieve its objectives. In the courtrooms, on college campuses, and, most especially, in our politics, race is a central theme. Where it does not naturally rise to the surface, there are those who will manufacture and amplify it.””

— Ward Connerly

Tags: Ward Connerly ∙ Left ∙ race ∙ default position

““Since the social victim has been oppressed by society, he comes to feel that his individual life will be improved more by changes in society than by his own initiative. Without realizing it, he makes society rather than himself the agent of change. The power he finds in his victimization may lead him to collective action against society, but it also encourages passivity within the sphere of his personal life.””

— Shelby Steele

Tags: Shelby Steele ∙ social victim ∙ oppressed ∙ changes in society ∙ initiative ∙ agent of change ∙ victimization ∙ passivity

““Kids should be allowed to just be kids.””

— Lauren Chen

Tags: Lauren Chen ∙ kids

Economics describes the flow of value.

Tags: maxims ∙ respect ∙ individual ∙ label

““By the democratic principles we espouse, government cannot have a right that citizens do not grant it. There are certain things that a person has no right to do. A person has no right to murder or rape another. Therefore, people cannot grant government authority to murder and rape. Similarly, no person has the right to forcibly take the property of one person in order to give it to another. Therefore, people cannot grant government authority to do the same thing. If I forcibly took property from one person, for any reason, most people would condemn it as theft, an immoral act. Theft or any other immoral act does not become moral because it is done by government acting on behalf of a consensus or majority vote just as murder or rape does not become a moral act simply because of a consensus or majority vote.””

— Walter E. Williams

Tags: Walter E. Williams ∙ government ∙ authority ∙ citizens ∙ murder ∙ rape ∙ theft ∙ consensus

““One cannot and must not try to erase the past merely because it does not fit the present.””

— Golda Meir

Tags: Golda Meir ∙ past ∙ present ∙ cross posted

““You have “issues” with the Gadsden Flag? Go fuck yourself.

You have “issues” with the Betsy Ross flag? Go fuck yourself.

You have “issues” with my “Come and Take It” shirt? Go fuck yourself.

I could go on. But you get the idea.

Perhaps you consider this intemperate and confrontational. I agree! It is intemperate and confrontational by intent. Just like the Gadsden Flag.””

— Craig Pirrong, Have “Issues” With the Gadsden Flag?: GFY

Tags: Craig Pirrong ∙ Gadsden Flag ∙ Betsy Ross flag ∙ Come and Take It ∙ GFY

“"It's obvious you idiot" doesn't cut it.”

Tags: maxims ∙ libertarian ∙ American ∙ personal freedom ∙ economic freedom ∙ responsibility ∙ government ∙ individual

❝❝A conservative tends to value economic freedom over personal freedom. Usually this means removing government obstacles to business while advocating a common moral belief system to join people together, even if someone has to sacrifice in the name of that system. In it's more extreme forms, that can mean dictating the personal behavior (and occasionally beliefs) of individuals through government actions. The bottom line and results take precedence over feelings.❞❞

— NeoWayland, Pagan•Vigil FAQ

Tags: maxims ∙ conservative ∙ government ∙ economic freedom ∙ common good

❝❝A modern liberal can range from what used to be called a "progressive" to socialist. Roughly speaking, a modern liberal is all for personal freedom but feels that economic freedom and opportunity should be controlled by government action so that everyone "benefits equally" in the name of "social justice." In it's more extreme forms, it can mean that good intentions and lofty goals are judged over results.❞❞

— NeoWayland, Pagan•Vigil FAQ

Tags: maxims ∙ modern liberal ∙ progressive ∙ socialist ∙ personal freedom ∙ economic freedom ∙ government ∙ equality ∙ social justice

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Styxhexenhammer666 ∙ liberal ∙ Donald Trump ∙ racist

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ PragerU ∙ Nancy Rommelmann ∙ #MeToo ∙ #MeNeither

““Feminists never notice crimes like this, because “violence against women” doesn’t matter when it’s committed by Third World men.””

— Robert Stacy McCain, Death by Tourism

Tags: Robert Stacy McCain ∙ feminist ∙ crime ∙ violence ∙ women ∙ Third World ∙ men

❝❝People don't do good because of the law. People do good because it's the right thing to do. People choose good because it makes the World a little better than it was. It's the choice and the action that makes a responsible adult.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ do good ∙ right thing ∙ choice ∙ action ∙ responsibility

❝❝Public pressure had nothing to do with it. Like most great moments in American history, ordinary people chose the right thing and to hell with what the elected officials thought or did. Americans have been doing that for almost 250 years. It's a part of our mythology. How many of our great stories and films are about the underdog taking a stand and winning?❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ American ∙ history ∙ ordinary people ∙ right thing ∙ elected officials ∙ mythology ∙ underdog ∙ taking a stand

❝❝History changes not because of Great People doing Great Things, but because of ordinary people choosing extraordinary things.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ history ∙ choice ∙ ordinary people

““May we think of freedom not as the right to do as we please, but as the opportunity to do what is right.””

— Peter Marshall

Tags: Peter Marshall ∙ freedom ∙ right

““Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.””

— Rick Warren

Tags: Rick Warren ∙ culture ∙ lies ∙ lifestyle ∙ fear ∙ hate ∙ love ∙ agree ∙ nonsense ∙ compromise ∙ convictions ∙ compassionate

Tags: Google ∙ Alphabet ∙ censorship ∙ judgement ∙ approval

““The solution to this problem isn’t increasing the censorship powers of the already-bloated police state as carceral feminists are demanding; it’s fighting the idea that a woman’s body is something to be ashamed of.””

— Maggie McNeill

Tags: Maggie McNeill ∙ censorship ∙ police state ∙ carceral ∙ feminist ∙ woman ∙ body ∙ shame

““Modern feminism is largely about encouraging women to adopt the worst behaviours of men.””

— Tim Newman

Tags: Tim Newman ∙ feminism ∙ worst ∙ behavior ∙ men ∙ women

““It's interesting that the people who believe that throwing a milkshake in someone's face shouldn't be considered assault are often the same people who believe that 'saying things' should be.””

— Ricky Gervais, Tweeted at 5:04 AM - 30 Jun 2019

Tags: Ricky Gervais ∙ milkshake ∙ assault

Public spectacle to bypass the law and suppress dissent.

Tags: maxims ∙ labels

“Michael Lacey and James Larkin's website, Backpage.com was seized in April 2018 and they were arrested for allegedly facilitating prostitution. They have maintained their innocence, saying the publishing on their website, which included adult ads and general classifieds, is protected by the First Amendment.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ Michael Lacey ∙ James Larkin ∙ FOSTA ∙ Backpage.com ∙ prostitution ∙ First Amendment

❝❝"People of color" don't need me to make them victims, they are too busy doing it themselves.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ people of color ∙ victims

❝❝In my experience, professional academics are appallingly ignorant outside their fields, and often ignorant of their field outside their specific school of thought. Especially in the humanities or the soft sciences.

Outside of the real world, success is measured by publication and complication, not the practical application. Shakespeare is not just a dead white guy's words on a page, it's about understanding character and narrative and the blossoming of human nature. It's about passing on stories and showing the future what worked for us and those who went before.

There's a reason why the "dead white males" stuff stuck around, it's because it worked. That doesn't mean it excludes all other possibilities, it means we start with what we know worked so we can learn to see what else could happen.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ academics ∙ publication ∙ complication ∙ practical ∙ Shakespeare ∙ dead white male

❝❝Save us from the crusaders. “Here I come to save the day!”

Whatever form WestCiv and America specifically ends up with, you're still going to have to live with people who disagree and hate everything you stand for. You don't build communities by excluding people you don't like.

Crusading just means "your" side will win for a short while. And the the whole cycle starts again.

---

Unknown today. In his time, his writings were very well known and pretty influential. He wrote Our Enemy, the State among other things

I cited him in the first place is because a top down approach doesn't work for very long, if it works at all. People resent being told what to do, especially if you force them. I don't have a detailed plan because I don't think that any one person or any one group has all the answers. I think a big, big part of the problem is that we usually phrase our social problems in dualities, this or that. Dualities exclude other choices, it's all or nothing. So when I see phases like "save Western Civilization," it tells me that someone is reinforcing the original problem, not finding a solution.

No matter how good their plan may be, anything based on a dual choice and only a dual choice is doomed. That's the point that Nock tried to make in that article. People won't submit to Greater Authority for Their Own Good. The people you might convince won't listen until after the stuff hits the fan.

---

To start with, we could enforce the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment clearly outlaws most of the Federal government.

Given how little the Federal government pays attention to the Constitution and it's own laws, I don't think additional restrictions would work.

---

The Constitution was designed to rein in government. I'd encourage anyone interested to read the Federalist papers and the anti-Federalist papers. Unless the power is specifically granted in the Constitution, the Federal government doesn't have it. Or at least it shouldn't.

The one time that the Constitution was amended to restrict the people was a disaster.

It wasn't until the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th that the public perception of limited government turned to expecting an activist government with virtually unlimited powers.

I don't care about SCOTUS in the 20th Century, I'm pretty sure that time travel causes unintended consequences.

---

See, I'm not sure if adding more government is the solution to bad government. Hmm, I might have said something like that before.

And I don't think trading insults is the way to go. Sometimes winning isn't nearly as important as keeping the other guy from reaching the goal.

---

Isn't adding things like term limits and engineering the constraints adding to government?

I wasn't talking about insulting the voters. Imagine a boxing match. Which shows more skill, the ability to take and dish out punch after punch? Or the ability not to get hit while letting the other guy hurt himself trying to hurt you?

Which leaves you better able to go to work after?

---

Yes, the Constitution is a restraint device. But it hasn't worked. Why should another work? This is where you lose me.

Whatever Trump may or may not be, what happens next? Trump is rare, most people can't fight dirty for an extended time. If the only structure we can build depends on fighting dirty for every advantage, how are we better off?

---

No, it hasn't, not for at least 85 years. Although I think a strong case can be made that it hasn't more than a century. What we've been living under is the illusion that the Constitution is working and that more government is a good thing.

I've argued that term limits are meaningless when the major parties control who gets on the ballot. I've also argued that primary elections divert attention away from the real stakes. CGP Grey has a great video explaining why first part the post voting is not a good thing.

I keep returning to this because I think it is critical. We've been indoctrinated for generations to think that the way to fix a corrupt system is through system management. We've moved beyond the black mold stage, the pieces are so radioactive that using them not only risks our health but also could contaminate any new pieces we add. The benefits of "playing the system" and exploiting others and yes, even fighting dirty and ugly so outweigh long term thinking that there are actually severe disincentives to a long term IPD.

Case in point, and this one isn't even a libertarian thing. The US has more military bases in more foreign nations than any other power in history. Our military spending is bigger than the next thirty nations combined. We actively discourage other nations from establishing their own bases. We meddle in their internal affairs and throw hissy fits when people from other nations buy advertising aimed at our own elections. We bully others and tell ourselves that we fight the really bad bullies "for the little guy."

Why?

Do you think that Trump would stand down? Maybe close ten percent of our overseas bases? Do you think that American intervention leads to a safer world? Would you accept it if other nations did the same to the US?

Why is it bad when the deep state does it, but OK when Trump uses the same tools?

---

You misunderstand. I'm waiting for the system to rip itself apart. I don't have to work actively against it, I just don't have to patch it up or compensate for it's failure.

One area we do disagree is that the right is somehow more moral than the left. Another is that a system controlled by the right is preferable to one controlled by the left. The right gave us the USA PATRIOT Act, and the left gave us Obamacare. Hard to say at this point which has done the most damage. As for Trump, well, trade and tariffs alone are balanced on a knifeblade between what might possibly work if we are extremely lucky and what might cause disaster so epic as to make the Great Depression and World War II look like last Tuesday.

---

It's not the voters I don't trust. I don't trust the "options" the voters are allowed to have. You can have your left arm or your right leg cut off, but you must choose one.

I'm willing to let my principles compete without the coercion of the state or what is "morally right." That's more than either the right or the left want, they want to hold a gun to people's heads for Your Own Good.

The right is self-limiting? The War on Drugs. Too big to fail. An ongoing overseas war that for the first time in American history, has soldiers fighting who weren't even born when it started.

While I marginally prefer conservatives, no one and certainly no institution gets a pass because of the label. Branding is a horrific way to govern. What have you done for me lately?

---

The duality is an illusion. More accurately the duality is a condition required for the system to work. But that doesn't mean the system is a good idea or the best idea. Yet that duality by it's nature locks us into either/or and calls it the best choice.

The system wants us to choose the best baseball team when I want to swim.

My problem is that I see statists on "both" sides, and the right is no less threatening than the left. Your premise is that the right is a better choice and my premise is that statists (any statists) threaten freedom.❞❞

Tags: Western Civilization ∙ America ∙ disagree ∙ crusade ∙ Albert Jay Nock ∙ top down ∙ dualism ∙ Constitution ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ restraint ∙ government ∙ Federalist papers ∙ Anti-Federalist papers ∙ SCOTUS ∙ progressive ∙ solution ∙ Donald Trump ∙ term limits ∙ primary election ∙ CGP Grey ∙ first past the post ∙ system management ∙ milirarist ∙ right ∙ Left ∙ voters ∙ statist

❝❝If you teach people to only take power from their victimhood, all you're really doing is teaching them to stay victims.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ power ∙ victimhood ∙ victims

❝❝I also greet the sunrise every day that I can. That's something I learned from my Baptist deacon grandfather. Granted, I do it with a bit more ceremony than he ever did. He was content to do it from the front porch with a cup of coffee.

Oh, and I've been known to dance naked in the light of a full Moon.

You can't embarrass me for following rites and rituals, anymore than you can embarrass a Christian for taking communion or an orthodox Jew for keeping kosher. My faith isn't my politics, and it doesn't matter to me what others think about it. It's between me and the Divine.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: cross posted ∙ maxims ∙ sunrise ∙ grandfather ∙ Baptist ∙ ceremonial ∙ dance naked ∙ full Moon ∙ rites and rituals ∙ Christian ∙ communion ∙ Jew ∙ kosher ∙ faith ∙ Divine

““We are conditioned from a variety of sources to automatically expect agreement to follow from understanding.””

— Franklin Evans

Tags: Franklin Evans ∙ conditioned ∙ agrement ∙ understanding

❝❝Christians over the years have killed a lot more people in the name of their God or for the Greater Good than anyone else. It seems to be a mark of monotheism, and something the rest of us wish the monotheists would grow out of of.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Christians ∙ monotheism ∙ name of God ∙ greater good

❝❝If you are going to claim enlightenment in the name of your faith, you'd better damn accept the sins too.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Then I choose not to follow a Biblical morality.

Tags: Biblical morality ∙ Old Testament ∙ Decalogue ∙ Christians ∙ Jews ∙ New Testament ∙ Jesus ∙ John ∙ costs ∙ benefits ∙ submit ∙ religion ∙ coercive power ∙ government ∙ moral justification ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ Biblical authority

❝❝We don't agree with each other, not entirely. Just because someone is religious doesn't automatically mean that they are defective. If nothing else, that faith gives them a different perspective. It doesn't mean it's right or wrong, more or less, just different. Sometimes that's good, sometimes not. It depends on the individual and circumstances.

Religion is bad is just as big a trap as science is good. There was an author named Isaac Bonewits who wrote on the limitations of dualism. Either/or thinking can trap you. One example is that if something is ACCEPTABLE than everything else is NOT ACCEPTABLE. It becomes easier to define what doesn't work for you as not fitting your worldview instead on it's own characteristics. If all you are looking for is WHITE, than anything else including fuzzy pink becomes NOT WHITE. I'm sure you'll agree that while black and fuzzy pink are NOT WHITE, neither are they the same thing. And we still haven't touched on semi-sweet.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ religious ∙ defect ∙ faith ∙ perspective ∙ right ∙ wrong ∙ religion ∙ science ∙ Isaac Bonewits ∙ dualism

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ SAT ∙ affirmative action ∙ adversity ∙ Asians ∙ racist ∙ social justice

❝❝Pardon, but attacking their compassion may not be the best way to go.

I don't have an answer either, but I think if you asked most conservatives if abortion was more compassionate than taking care of unwanted and/or disabled babies, they would laugh in your face. You would hand them both the issue and the moral high ground.

---

First, those are different issues. Conservatives aren't a monolithic block. Not every conservative has issues with vaccines, and not every conservative thinks that autism is worse than death. I've not run the numbers, but I suspect the crossover with the pro-life crowd is pretty small.

Second, I'm not the one you'll have to convince. I have mixed feelings myself and it's one of those issues where I can see more than one side depending on circumstance. But when you tell most conservatives that "killing babies" is more compassionate, you've lost the argument with them and they will fight you to the end. It doesn't help that Democrats have defined abortion as their primary issue and practically THE only standard that matters for a Supreme Court justice. It doesn't help that Roe vs. Wade has no constitutional precedent and would be inevitably challenged as soon as the balance on the court changed.

This has always been a divisive issue. When conservatives look at Virginia, they see it as a call to action. This "slaughter of innocents" is something that they've been forced to accept for almost 50 years, and they are ready to fight back hard.

---

By your standards.

By their standards of compassion, they are saving babies.

And that "they" includes many women who do not believe that feminists, liberals, and Democrats speak for them. You can't win this issue if you dismiss those women as objects who can't think on their own and must be "saved" from the evil patriarchy.

---

I've my own issues with Christians.

But…

How is what they do that much different from what you just did? You just described a "come to Jesus" moment only with a different premise.

If faith means anything at all, it has to be freely chosen. That means that people are going to make choices that you don't like, don't understand, and don't approve of. You are no more entitled to judge their creed for them than they are entitled to judge yours for you. You can't win a battle of faith. Neither can they.

If you tell them that they are ignorant and living in fear and that everything they believe about their god is wrong, they have no reason to listen. All you are doing is feeding their perceived persecution. They don't believe they are victimized.

And not all of them are.

---

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that they are right. And I am certainly not defending them. My own feelings on the subject are way too conflicted.

What I am saying is that in this case the liberal/progressive ideas of compassion and sympathy are completely different from the conservative ideas. You're using the same words but you are having completely different conversations. Attack them in the name of compassion and in their minds you just made their case for them and without realizing it.

The assumptions and perspectives are completely different. Your logic won't work for them, just as theirs won't work for you. Both of you are starting from absolutes for one thing, even if those absolutes are mostly opposite.

---

As a libertarian, I want less government than absolutely necessary. I'm not thrilled with idea of restricting rights, but I'm also not thrilled with the idea of government "picking up the slack" so to speak. And I oppose government interference with sex. But that doesn't mean I'm completely with the "left" on sex either. I don't think there should be government funding for private charities or other organizations. Which means Planned Parenthood shouldn't be getting grants or funding.

Or to cut through all the verbiage, rights good, government meddling bad.

I don't trust in the wisdom of government to "do the right thing."

---

See, my problem is that I see both major parties using government to interfere and push their own agendas. "For Your Own Good!" "For The Greater Good!" "Think Of The Children!"

Sex is mostly a voluntary act. I see abortion mostly and commonly used as the "contraception of last resort." A hook-up and regret after a drunken encounter is not the same thing as rape or incest. I think a case can be made for abortion because of rape or incest provided we accept that a case can be made for adoption as well.

We forget that charity used to happen outside of government. Marvin Olasky wrote The Tragedy of American Compassion. Although I don't agree with all of his conclusions, Olasky does point out that charity used to be a short-term thing, privately and locally administered, and above all intended to get people on their feet and responsible for their own choices. Instead of a faceless bureaucracy that measures it's "success" by "clients" processed and money spent, private charity measures it's success differently.

If people had to take responsibility, maybe abortion wouldn't be casual.

---

I'm not asking you to do anything else. I am saying that they have their own reasons which make sense to them. Their reasons are just as important to them as yours are to you.

Stars above, I get so very tired of the either/or dualism. It's never going to be winner take all. The longer we pretend that one side can decisively win, the longer the struggle will last. The people pushing hardest for either/or don't care which side wins as long as both sides are so blinded by the "righteousness" of their own cause that the never realize just how much they are surrendering to the "system."

All because somebody has to be in charge. All because we have to meddle in the lives and choices of others. All because we can't trust each other to make the "right choice" and take responsibility for that choice.

I'm not conservative. I'm not defending their position. I am not asking you to accept them on faith or anything else.

I'm saying that to really resolve this, we're going to have to sit down and talk through our differences. Smashing heads, pointing guns, and using the rule of law to declare one morality supreme above all isn't going to do anything for the long term. It will always be a holding pattern until the other side gets an advantage.

Think about all the passion we're giving away. There has got to be a better way.

ETA: I don't care who did it first. I don't care who did it more. I just want the whole mess over.

---

Pardon, but the liberal party also regularly proclaims that they are for the children. The last Democrat nominee ran as the "women and children" candidate. In 1996 a Democrat president proclaimed that the era of big government was over.

I don't think that government is the first, best, and last solution to our problems. I don't think politicos are qualified to decide what should be taught in schools, sex ed or not.

And here's the opinion that is not going to make me popular. If you can't afford children, you should rethink sex. People keep throwing in things like rape and incest, but most sex in this country is consensual. Mixing rape, incest, and consensual sex objectifies the woman and makes her not responsible for her own choices.

No, I am not ignoring the man in these cases. I am saying that rape and incest are the exception to the rule. Even under the ever changing definition of rate in today's culture, where some women do believe that regret equals rape.

At the moment, we're in a mess with both major parties wanting control over sex. You can blame the Republicans all you want, but thanks to #MeToo it's not the "patriarchy" that is collapsing, it's how we deal with one another and how we share sex.

I'm not going to make the conservative arguments for them. I'm telling you how they feel and how they are going to react.

Kavanaugh was asked about abortion. Most of the articles about Gorsuch speculated on how he might rule in abortion cases. And most of the concern about Trump picking judges gets coached in the impact it will have on abortion cases. Like it or not, this has become the standard.

The natural conclusion to the argument that if only a woman has the right to decide, then the man has no financial obligation to ending the abortion or paying child support.

Personally I don't think that tax dollars should go to any organization providing services, medical or otherwise. But that's not the conservative argument. I'll also point out what any accountant can tell you, if government pays for a certain class of services, that frees up funding for other things.

Government involvement in health care (all types) has raised the cost of "essential services." It's no accident that health care prices have skyrocketed since Medicare and Medicaid became law, boosted by every attempt to "control costs." It doesn't help that since health insurance became an employee benefit, people don't know what they are paying for.

If we're really going to have this discussion about solutions, one thing that has got to be on the table is removing government intervention. Yes, that means no government restrictions on abortion, but that also means no government (taxpayer) funded healthcare.

---

“The difference here being that Democrats support policies that help women, children, and families of all demographics.”

I'm sorry, but that is not true. For much of my life I've lived next to the Diné and Hopi. Democrat policies are very selective as to which groups get "helped" under which circumstances. I am not saying that the Republicans are better. I am saying that "public solutions" to social problems don't usually work, especially when they are administered hundreds or thousands of miles away from the actual problem. There are other reasons of course. Words matter, actions matter more, intentions don't.

Politicians are not qualified to determine curriculum, but neither are technocrats who don't live near the school and whose kids don't go to the school. Problems get solved when the people responsible for solving the problems have "skin in the game." Look at this. I say I don't believe that government is the first, last, and best solution and you're telling me why the Democrat experts are better. I'm not praising the Republicans. I'm criticizing the assumption that any Federal experts are better equipped to solve problems because they are Official and sanctioned by the appropriate authorities.

Responsibility for what one chooses to do is conservative? I know that is not what you meant, but it comes off as sex without consequences. Responsibility is important, and as long as sex is voluntary and consensual it's only adult to consider the consequences. Just as it's adult to consider before driving drunk, or stealing a protest sign that you don't agree with. Actions have consequences, the mark of an adult is the ability to make the right choice despite the threat of punishment.

Now I am not talking about not punishing people for their crimes or bad behavior. I'm saying that PIV sex is usually a choice and that, protected or not, might result in pregnancy. If you don't want kids, if you can't afford kids, the best time to think about that is before the moment when the hormones start carbonating.

I've never disputed that women have human rights. What I pointed out was the standard for a Federal judge has become their opinion on abortion. That's become one cornerstone of Democrat policy. Regardless of if I personally believe if abortion is right or wrong or if a women's choice should govern if abortion happens, I do find myself agreeing with those who say that the only way abortion could be made legal nationwide is through judicial declaration and not through the democratic process. Small d there. Throw in public monies and suddenly a right becomes a privilege.

I'm pointing out the logical fallacy of claiming it's a "woman's right" until it comes time to pay the bill. Choice without responsibility usually gives us spoiled brats, no matter what the gender or orientation.

The unregulated world is a charitable one. It's when charity becomes part of government that it becomes Somebody Else's Problem and Americans stop paying attention to what is needed. Americans voluntarily give more to charity than anyone else on the planet. Whether it's a child fallen down a well or a hurricane flooding New Orleans, we're there. More times than not, it's the Official™ charity and relief that gets in the way.

There's a good reason for that, and It is something I touched on earlier. Charity is supposed to be short term. When you tell someone that they will have government health care no matter what or that they will have financial aid to help pay the monthly bills no matter what, what incentive do they have to do for themselves? When you say someone needs government help, aren't you really saying that they are not good enough to do it on their own?

I'm not the first one to point out that the rising costs in heath care drastically outpaced inflation starting right after Medicare and Medicaid became law. Or that continued attempts to "fix healthcare" keep causing prices to go up and availability to go down. Think about it. The relative costs of Happy Meals, pocket calculators, cell phones, and bathroom towels have decreased while the availability and selection has gone up. That's not true with medical care, one of the most regulated industries out there. The disparity in pharmaceutical costs alone should make you wonder.

Removing government from the solution does work even if the government experts and the experts who depend on government tell you it won't. There's a couple of dozen special interest groups right there, all of them greedy for power and money. Somehow the accepted solution is always more government.❞❞

Tags: Christians ∙ compassion ∙ conservatives ∙ moral authority ∙ vaccine ∙ autism ∙ abortion ∙ Democrats ∙ Roe vs. Wade ∙ Virginia ∙ feminist ∙ liberals ∙ patriarchy ∙ faith

““Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.””

— Ralph Waldo Emerson

Tags: Ralph Waldo Emerson ∙ persecuted ∙ contradicted

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ CBS ∙ social media ∙ Donald Trump ∙ violence ∙ Mar-a-Lago ∙ Nazis ∙ white nationalism

Basically they didn't want another church telling their church what to do.

Tags: religious freedom ∙ American ∙ Christians ∙ tweeted ∙ English ∙ Protestant ∙ church ∙ compromise ∙ America ∙ UK ∙ Universal Declaration of Human Rights ∙ cross posted

❝❝Just to point out the obvious, previously language changed without being mandated or legally sanctioned or morally correct. It worked because people used it and decided that it worked.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ language ∙ mandated ∙ legally ∙ sanctioned ∙ correct ∙ worked ∙ pronouns ∙ transgender

““He.” “She.” “They.” Have you ever given a moment’s thought to your everyday use of these pronouns? It has probably never occurred to you that those words could be misused. Or that doing so could cost you your business or your job – or even your freedom. Journalist Abigail Shrier explains how this happened and why it's become a major free speech issue.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ PragerU ∙ pronouns ∙ Abigail Shrier

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ John McWhorter ∙ Columbia University ∙ linguist ∙ Jussie Smollett ∙ Donald Trump ∙ antiracism ∙ original sin ∙ noble victim ∙ victimhood ∙ white privilege

❝❝Coolness was never conservative.

It grew out of the jazz age and into the Las Vegas and West Coast aesthetic personified by Hefner, Sinatra, and Bruce. It was always about pushing the envelope with just a touch of rebellion. It was always about the show over substance and the deeds better left unmentioned.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ cool ∙ conservative ∙ Jazz Age ∙ Las Vegas ∙ West Coast aesthetic ∙ deeds better left unmentioned ∙ pushing the envelope ∙ touch of rebellion ∙ show over substance

❝❝Virtue isn't doing the right thing when there is no choice. Virtue is choosing and then doing it because it is the right thing.

That means the choice has to exist. It also means some people are going to make choices you don't like.

Without choice, it's not virtue. If you take the choice away, you're telling the person that you don't trust them and they aren't fully human.

Stuff happens, You can't change that. You can only try to make the World a little better than how you found it . Do you want people who can make the right choice? Or do you want ignorant children who don't know any better?❞❞

Tags: virtue ∙ choice ∙ human ∙ secret of life

““The childlike moral binary: only people who hold the all correct positions merit empathy or respect.””

— Dorian Lynskey, 2:50 AM - 2 Apr 2019

Tags: Dorian Lynskey ∙ moral binary ∙ merit ∙ empathy ∙ respect

❝❝People are looking for something, and some of them are not finding it in churches. Some are, but there never was a one-size-fits-all solution. Competition keeps us honest. It works for peanut butter, smart phones, and politics.

And it most certainly works for religion.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from Pagan Community News: Twin Cities man charged with child exploitation, SCOTUS decision, and more!

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ competition ∙ honest

““Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty one percent can vote away the rights of the other forty nine.””

— Thomas Jefferson

Tags: Thomas Jefferson ∙ democracy ∙ mob rule

The internet is the last, best hope for freedom. And the European Union can't stand that idea.

Tags: Benjamin Franklin ∙ democracy ∙ vote ∙ wolves ∙ lamb ∙ dinner

❝❝If the mainstream media spent one tenth the effort looking at Democrat misconduct that it does looking for Republican misconduct, the nation would be far better off.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ tweeted ∙ mainstream media ∙ effort ∙ Democrat ∙ misconduct ∙ Republican ∙ nation

““When disaster strikes, the national media focus on the despair and helplessness of those affected; the local media emphasize the strength and determination.””

— Christopher Harper, Flyover Country: The Real News About Floods

Tags: Christopher Harper ∙ national media ∙ local media ∙ despair ∙ helplessness ∙ strength ∙ determination ∙ flyover country

❝❝I'm not going to talk about Trump and his failings or if he is substantially worse than the other presidents.

What I am going to talk about (again) is that all these efforts to nail Trump show that the Federal government has too much power and that rogue elements and actors are not held accountable.

Yes, Trump's office was bugged. But that is just part of a surveillance state that has been in turbo boost since 9-11. And 9-11 isn't a good excuse, it just codified and focused secret plans that had been drifting around since the 1970s.

The issue is not Trump. The issue is not the Republicans. The issue is not the Democrats. These ongoing struggles over which party is on the side of the angels and public perception over crimes and misdeeds, that's just the distraction. While we're arguing over who did what, there are unelected and unaccountable elements in government and high finance who are taking power and freedom away from you.

No, you didn't win. The game hasn't stopped. We are still being screwed. And the next bit will make this look like robbing a kid's lemonade stand.❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Federal government ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ distraction ∙ tweeted

““It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.””

— Ron Paul, End the Fed

Tags: Ron Paul ∙ central banking ∙ total war

❝❝Islam is a faith. Criticism of Islam is not racism.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ islam ∙ faith ∙ criticism ∙ racism ∙ tweeted

❝❝You're making unjustified assumptions.

Is the climate crisis a thing? To some (like most pagans), yes. To others like (not conservative) me, no. It's an article of faith, not far removed from monotheism or forgiveness of sin. The issue is that because of the alarmism, those who believe in the climate crisis don't tolerate dissent because of the "urgency" of the problem.

At their best, American Christian conservatives are extremely community minded. A child lost in the woods? They are there looking. Death in the family? Somebody is bringing meals by. The problem is who they identify as being part of the community. Something that is not helped by some like pagans setting themselves outside the acknowledged community.

Most claims of conservative racism are because the conservatives involved didn't see any reason to grant special privilege when people already had rights recognized by law. It doesn't help when conservatives are routinely accused of white supremacy simply for being the wrong skin color regardless of their words and actions. There is a vast difference between not supporting the claims of groups like BLM and being racist. Because conservatives (and libertarians too) see rights as individual and not collective, the idea of identity politics is repugnant. You have rights because you are human, not because you are Hispanic, female, wore a pink hat in a march, or consider yourself non-binary.

What's more, the idea that only "whites" can be racist because of something that was done in their great-great-great grandparents time just doesn't fly. Racism comes in all colors. I've seen casual racism my entire life. I've also seen most people reach out for no other reason than someone else needed help.

Finally, judging people by label is a mistake. The label has no inherent vice or virtue. It's the individual who makes the label mean something through their words and actions, not the other way around. Power from victimhood depends on the pity of others and will make you less than you are.

---

Here are some of the demands for privilege I've seen during my life.

The idea that one skin color and one skin color alone can decide what is and is not racism. I still know people who try to convince me that a "black" minister saying "Hymietown" is not racist.

The idea that inner-city poverty is a more important than reservation poverty.

The idea that a person whose family came from Nigeria two generations ago has a claim on the success of a person whose family came from China five generations ago.

The idea that skin color should trump evidence in a crime.

And as long as we keep qualifying the legal definition of who is and is not allowed to marry, that problem will not go away. Previously I've pointed out in discussions on this site that somehow in the call for marriage equality poly marriage wasn't even a consideration. That selectivity is a consequence of defining rights by group instead of individual.

---

Pardon, but the bit about how some threw poly people under the bus should be stressed. Because the "struggle" wasn't about marriage in whatever form it could take between consenting adults, it was about "gay marriage."

It wasn't about rights. It was about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.

No, there wasn't a "polyamorous community" fighting to be recognized. I had some LGBT activists tell me emphatically that poly people didn't deserve marriage because they hadn't fought for it.

That is where my issue is. I'm perfectly willing to fight for equal rights. But I hear demands for "black" rights, Hispanic rights, women's rights, gay rights, and for all I know rights for people with ingrown toenails. Not to mention Christian rights, pagan rights, Muslim rights, atheist rights, and pastafarian rights. That doesn't even count the constant efforts of government to define government powers as rights (police rights, Congress has the right…). It seems that everyone wants to carve out their own piece but no one is willing to help carve out a piece for any group but theirs. Especially if they don't agree with other groups.

It's not about rights. It's about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.

Oh, and by the way, "white" cis males are guilty for all the troubles in the world. Especially when they don't abase themselves to the demands of self-identified victims-of-the-week. No matter what they personally have done or said, "white" cis males are undeniably and collectively guilty. Or so I am told. Again and again and again.

How that is not racist is beyond me.

Meanwhile "people of color" tell me that they are fighting for the rights of the victimized. And they are. But not if those victims live almost invisibly and don't advance certain causes. And definitely not if those victims have different politics. If there is an oil pipeline that gets TV coverage, the "champions" are all over it. But every day poverty on Amerindian reservations, well, that just isn't important enough.

So tell me, when is it reasonable when some victims are deliberately overlooked? Maybe it's not about rights. Maybe it's about privilege.

Human rights are the only ones worth fighting for. Maybe we should worry about the rights we share instead of a place in the pecking order. It's not a right unless the other has it too.

---

“I still wouldn't characterize them as privileges.”

I know. That's what's so frustrating. Human rights get moved to the back seat, then to the bicycle with a flat tire thirteen rows back.❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ unjustified ∙ assumption ∙ climate crisis ∙ article of faith ∙ American ∙ Amerindians ∙ reservation ∙ Christian ∙ conservatives ∙ community ∙ racism ∙ privilege ∙ rights ∙ label ∙ marriage ∙ gay marriage ∙ polyamory ∙ people of color ∙ victims ∙ overlook ∙ human rights

❝❝Personally I'd be willing to live and let live with Christians. But that works two ways. If my beliefs don't control the actions and beliefs of monotheists, then theirs don't control mine. That means that the law must treat every faith (and even no faith) equally. Neither help nor hinder. No special consideration or privilege. But at the same time, some Christians act as if their religion must be raised above all others, even by those who do not practice it. Freedom of religion does not mean putting Christianity first. It means choice, even if that choice is one you do not agree with.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Christians ∙ monotheism ∙ uniform rule of law ∙ neither help nor hinder ∙ freedom of religion ∙ live & let live ∙ cross posted

❝❝Kudos for not mentioning the shooter's name.

The shooter had absolutely nothing to do with Heathenry or pagan beliefs. I don't understand why any group should change their language, practices, customs or actions when the shooter was not part of the group or the community.

Guns are not the problem. There are many more responsible gun owners than crazy people. The people who pay attention to gun laws are not the ones you should worry about. I say this as a reluctant gun advocate. I hate guns and I would ban them if I could eliminate every gun.

This tragedy does not reflect on Heathens. I understand that you have issues with how some Heathens speak and act. I respect that and I expect that you should speak your conscience. This terrible event should not justify wholesale changes in Heathenry just to satisfy your political desires.❞❞

— comments from Column: After Christchurch, Declarations or Deeds?

Tags: maxims ∙ cross posted ∙ damnatio memoriae ∙ Heathenry ∙ pagan ∙ language ∙ practices ∙ customs ∙ actions ∙ shooter ∙ community ∙ guns ∙ reluctant advocate ∙ conscience ∙ Christchurch ∙ New Zealand

❝❝There is nothing that prevents people from following religious law. But there is nothing that demands others follow those same religious laws.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ cross posted ∙ Jews ∙ Christianity ∙ Buddhist ∙ faith ∙ Divine ∙ pagan garb ∙ Decalogue ∙ imposed ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ Story ∙ Journey ∙ pagan ∙ neopagans ∙ vodun ∙ blood sacrific ∙ sexual ∙ consent

““The whole climate crisis is not only fake news, it’s fake science. There is no climate crisis, there’s weather and climate all around the world, and in fact carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.””

— Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. Yes, he really was a co-founder of Greenpeace

Tags: Patrick Moore ∙ Greenpeace ∙ climate crisis ∙ fake news ∙ fake science ∙ weather ∙ climate ∙ carbon dioxide

“We all get into intense discussions with frustrating leftists, but despite all the reason and logic in the world, we rarely make progress. In this video, I explore some ways in which anyone might effectively red pill a liberal.”

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ MrReagan ∙ discuss ∙ red pill ∙ progressive ∙ leftist

““I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies.””

— The American's Creed as quoted in Embracing the American's Creed

❝❝Regarding the creed.

No.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments on Is #AOC-ward (aka Ocasio-Cortez) a mere puppet for sinister people?

So here is this marvelous piece of 1917 poetry, and I said no. Why?

It's the difference between the Dream and the actuality.

One topic I've been debating recently is the emergency powers of the President. If you accept that the President has the power to declare emergencies, it's not exactly “of the people, by the people, for the people.” It's literally what one man said, not subject to debate or dissent. Theoretically it can be revised by Congress, but in practice it never is.

It doesn't stop there. Some agencies have power to regulate the people and the states. While sometimes these powers are subject to Congressional review, usually these regulations have the power of law without actually being law. What's worse is that the agencies often have administrative courts with different requirements. It's outside the normal court system and not subject to the rules of law. These regulations do not come from the "consent of the governed."

America has not been “a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States” since at least the Civil War. Everything from education to Prohibition to the EPA has been forced on the states, often in direct violation of the wishes of the citizens of the states. There's very little way to opt out.

America was never meant to be a “a perfect Union, one and inseparable;”. The phrase comes from the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, but somehow the creed left out one word that changes the meaning. We're not meant to have a perfect union, we're supposed to have a more perfect union. As in we haven't done it yet, it's a work in progress. We're still arguing over what that means and how we can do it.

And yes, that means that if people don't like it, they can leave it. Even whole states.

Those ideals of “freedom, equality, justice, and humanity” are mutually incompatible. Specifically, freedom and justice aren't about equality or humanity. For most of the 20th Century, the idea of equality was used to rein in exceptional and unusual people. They couldn't be allowed to challenge the status quo. I don't know what the ideals of humanity are, but I am pretty sure we don't agree.

Speaking of justice, there are unjust American laws. Mandatory minimum sentencing, civil forfeiture, eminent domain, vice laws, laws and regulations preventing the use of precious metals as legal tender, mandatory union dues, "free speech" zones, zoning laws, the list goes on and on.

Nobody, no person, no institution, and certainly no nation deserves love without reservation. If you do not question what your nation does, you have failed as a citizen. The Constitution is not perfect and certainly the law is not perfect. And lest we forget, this nation was founded on the biggest and most polite "screw you" in human history. You can't choose liberty unless you embrace the right to walk away.

That's it. That's why my response is a simple word.

No.

Tags: American's Creed ∙ United States ∙ of the people ∙ by the people ∙ for the people ∙ just powers ∙ consent of the governed ∙ freedom ∙ equality ∙ justice ∙ humanity ∙ Constitution ∙ Dream ∙ emergencies ∙ President ∙ Congress ∙ regulation ∙ more perfect union ∙ unjust

❝❝Maybe the fault isn't in the "Right" or "Left," but in the idea that other people's behavior must be controlled For Their Own Good and For the Good of Society. Rather than teaching people that freedom comes with responsibility, we condition people to obey the duly delegated Proper Authority for the sake of perpetuating the institution.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Right ∙ Left ∙ behavior ∙ controlled ∙ For Their Own Good ∙ For the Good of Society ∙ freedom ∙ responsibility ∙ conditioned ∙ obey ∙ Proper Authority ∙ institutions

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ John Stossel ∙ ReasonTV ∙ grievance studies ∙ hoax ∙ academic journals ∙ gender ∙ race ∙ political corruption ∙ sexuality

❝❝Language is defined by usage, not expert decision and proclamation. It's why there are new words like smartphone and LOL. It's why there are obscure words like gelogenic and aretaics that most people don't know.

Now, do I know science? Yep, I know the scientific method. I know that science works by explaining past phenomena and accurately predicting future change. I know that there is a difference between physics and chemistry, although hardcore physicists will insist that every thing in chemistry is only a subsection of physics. I know that expertise does more to define blind spots than establish authority.

And I know that insight and understanding is not defined by degrees and publication, but by who can explain and predict. I also know that disparaging the source without considering the argument moves from scholarship to dogma. I know that the institution doesn't have value except in that it can produce results.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ language ∙ usage ∙ expert ∙ gelogenic ∙ aretaics ∙ scientific method ∙ science ∙ phenomena ∙ predictions ∙ physics ∙ chemistry ∙ authority ∙ insight ∙ understanding ∙ scholarship ∙ dogma ∙ institutions

❝❝Science doesn't work by consensus. Science works by explaining existing phenomena AND accurately predicting what happens next. Scientists are people too and they can see where the money and power are coming from. Very few want to speak against that. Sometimes the ones who have disputed the consensus have been attacked and discredited without the argument ever being addressed.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ science ∙ consensus ∙ explaining ∙ phenomena ∙ predictions ∙ money ∙ power ∙ discredited ∙ argument

America is not a rape culture.

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ Eugene Volokh ∙ Free Speech Rules

❝❝For the Official Record, I didn't dispute that climate change is occurring. I disputed the measured changes were significant, if they were unusual, and if they were human caused. There's also the questions if the changes are bad, if humans can stop or reverse it, and if we should mess with a climate system that we have yet to understand.

For these reasons I dispute the climate change crisis.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ climate change ∙ significant ∙ unusual ∙ human caused ∙ climate change crisis

There is a distinct difference between healthcare and health insurance.

Tags: sex ∙ rape ∙ rape culture ∙ #MeToo ∙ America ∙ Europe ∙ pagan ∙ heathen ∙ cross posted

What we do know is that there are loud politicos who want to take freedom, power, and money from people "for the greater good."

Tags: climate change ∙ climate models ∙ predictions ∙ climate alarmist ∙ politicos ∙ celebrity ∙ global cooling ∙ global warming ∙ climate science ∙ Intervene ∙ natural process ∙ freedom ∙ power ∙ money

❝❝I think that for the politicos it was never about saving humans or the planet, it was always the justification for shifting massive amounts of power and cash without accountability.

Ocasio-Cortez is an idiot and a very noisy distraction.

What is going to hit next is The Compromise®. There will be some very well respected and high profile Democrats who will publicly proclaim that of course the Green New Deal goes too far. But maybe we should consider some of the proposals. Carefully. After all, people are scared.

And if the "reasonable" Democrats don't get The Compromise®, they can always throw their weight behind Ocasio-Cortez.

I suspect that "no planes" means no air travel unless it's Absolutely Necessary. With the Democrats deciding what is and is not necessary. Look for that in all the new proposals. That will be part of The Compromise® and how it will be sold to the public.❞❞

Tags: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ green new deal ∙ environmental crusade ∙ Democrats ∙ The Compromise® ∙ it's Absolutely Necessary ∙ exceptions

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ John Stossel ∙ homeless ∙ San Francisco ∙ slum

❝❝Consider this. Is it possible that the corruption and graft are a function of the system and not a defect?❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ system ∙ corruption ∙ graft ∙ function ∙ defect

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Owen Benjamin ∙ same goals ∙ America ∙ commonality ∙ PragerU ∙ conservatives ∙ liberals ∙ leftist

Donald Trump: ‘We’ve Got to Get Out of These Endless Wars’

The Winter is Wreaking Havoc on Electric Vehicle Batteries

Taxes Are Getting Weaponized for Partisan Purposes

The Real Problem: The Militarization of the NFL

San Francisco — where drug addicts outnumber high school students

Covington Student Nick Sandmann’s Lawyers Send Preservation Letters to Media, Celebrities

Major DNA Testing Company Sharing Genetic Data With the FBI

U.S. Coup Attempt In Venezuela Lacks International Support

The cheapest Chinese electric cars are coming to the US and Europe—for as little as $9,000

Trump Once Wanted to Negotiate With Russia Over Nukes. Then Mueller Happened.

The Democrats and the politics of division

When Feminists Abandon Girls

Why Does the Federal Government Fail So Miserably Most of the Time?

Tags: feminist ∙ girls ∙ DNC ∙ victimhood ∙ victim hierarchy ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ Russia ∙ negotiate ∙ nuclear weapons ∙ Venezuela ∙ coup ∙ General Bullmoose ∙ FBI ∙ Covington Catholic School ∙ Nick Sandmann ∙ lawyers ∙ San Francisco ∙ drug addicts ∙ sudents ∙ winter ∙ electric vehicles ∙ taxes ∙ abuse of power ∙ NFL ∙ militarization ∙ warfare state

❝❝The classes teaching socialist and Marxist ideology aren't labeled as such. They are in fact part of the general education requirement. That wouldn't be so bad, except those classes are the only ones allowed. No one is allowed to dissent from the orthodoxy.

Once upon a time, university meant debating things that you disagreed with or that made you uncomfortable. You learned to think and defend your reasoning even if the words and thoughts you faced offended you.

Now, we have safe spaces to protect overgrown children from triggering because they shouldn't have to face something that actually makes them think and grow.

Education should not be pre-chewed. Education should be hard. Education should challenge you to be something more than you are right now. Education should be about understanding what you oppose. Education should be about finding what works.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from De-toxify America by pulling federal funds out of higher education

Tags: maxims ∙ education ∙ universities ∙ general education requirement ∙ Marxists ∙ socialist ∙ ideology ∙ dissent ∙ defend ∙ reasoning ∙ safe spaces ∙ triggering ∙ children ∙ challenge ∙ finding what works

The Nature of Sex

““If this sounds like a massive overreach, consider the fact that the proposed Equality Act — with 201 co-sponsors in the last Congress — isn’t simply a ban on discriminating against trans people in employment, housing, and public accommodations (an idea with a lot of support in the American public). It includes and rests upon a critical redefinition of what is known as “sex.” We usually think of this as simply male or female, on biological grounds (as opposed to a more cultural notion of gender). But the Equality Act would define “sex” as including “gender identity,” and defines “gender identity” thus: “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”””
     — Andrew Sullivan

Tags: guest content ∙ clipping ∙ Andrew Sullivan ∙ transgender ∙ Congress ∙ discrimination ∙ sex ∙ gender identity

GFC Lessons Not Learnt

Tags: sex ∙ rape ∙ consensual ∙ adult

❝❝Bottom line: the politics of victimhood always depend on the guilt of others AND avoiding personal responsibility. And no matter what the "guilty" might "sacrifice," it's never enough. Equal rights and equal opportunity is one thing, special privilege because of "past wrongs" is just asking for trouble.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from The Assault Smirk and Scary Leftist illustrated edition

Tags: maxims ∙ victimhood ∙ personal responsiblity ∙ equal rights ∙ equal opportunity ∙ guilt ∙ sacrifice

❝❝It’s not about who is better, it’s about what we can do together.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ better ∙ together

“Covington Catholic and the MAGA hat kid may sue media figures for libel. The school closes down for safety concerns, and Trump tweets his support for the students...”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ Roaming Millennial ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Covington Catholic School ∙ Nathan Philips ∙ Nick Sandmann ∙ MAGA hats

❝❝Many utopian ideas aren't based in reality and require unwilling sacrifice (otherwise called theft). The utopian definition of injustice is always how society is just evil, without considering that society mostly works. So rather than correcting the injustice, society must be corrected.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Utopia ∙ injustice ∙ society ∙ evil

“It’s school choice week. Many kids don’t have choice in where they go to school. The school choice movement is trying to give them that opportunity.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ John Stossel ∙ Stossel in the Classroom

“I normally avoid these sort of topics, but after seeing all this footage and all the people trying to destroy these kids lives, I felt like I had to do something.

We all need to do better, stop with this mob mentality over the first thing we see. Remember there's always two sides to a coin.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Nathan Philips ∙ Nick Sandmann ∙ Dinkleberry Crunch ∙ Covington Catholic School ∙ MAGA hats

Washington Forced Segregation on the Nation

Tags: clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Richard Rothstein ∙ segregation ∙ 1940 ∙ Federal government ∙ African-Americans ∙ FHA ∙ civil rights

“A short film - Dedicated to all those who sacrifice everything to make the world safer and better for all of us.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Gillette ∙ Egard Watches ∙ man ∙ masculinity ∙ Longrider

I'd argue that the writing was on the wall when marriage was legally defined and moved away from being a religious rite to being a secular right.

Tags: marriage ∙ religion ∙ secular ∙ Bookworm ∙ permissible ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ damage ∙ undesirables ∙ interracial marriages ∙ force of law ∙ Constitution ∙ man ∙ woman ∙ English common law ∙ Bible ∙ 20th Century ∙ Emperor Nero ∙ Mesopotamia ∙ China ∙ John Boswell ∙ Orthodox Church ∙ Native Americas ∙ third gender ∙ two-spirit ∙ mating ∙ pairbond ∙ raising a family ∙ Divine ∙ Old Testament ∙ biological ∙ monogamy ∙ permissible ∙ choice ∙ privilege ∙ right to vote ∙ Christian

Tags: Brexit ∙ Will Hurd ∙ private property ∙ Texas ∙ judge ∙ election ∙ Wisconsin ∙ lame duck ∙ special counsel ∙ Donald Trump ∙ lawyer ∙ Amazon ∙ Watergate ∙ government action ∙ masculinity ∙ boycott ∙ BDS ∙ Green Berets ∙ France ∙ yellow vest ∙ Emmanuel Macron ∙ class action lawsuit ∙ election tampering ∙ Navy ∙ USS Fitzgerald ∙ probe ∙ Real ID ∙ national security ∙ New York ∙ gun rights ∙ FISA ∙ DoJ ∙ Steele Dossier ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ privacy ∙ Tim Cook ∙ Apple ∙ FTC ∙ Facebook ∙ children ∙ California ∙ Third World ∙ credit card companies ∙ censorship ∙ Second Amendment

Tags: guest content ∙ Clay Routledge ∙ woke ∙ capitalism ∙ companies ∙ social justice ∙ virtue signaling

““Doubts raced through my mind as I considered the feasibility of enforcing a law which the majority of honest citizens didn't seem to want.””

— Eliot Ness

Tags: Eliot Ness ∙ doubt ∙ enforce ∙ honest citizens

“A new Gillette commercial tackles toxic masculinity & metoo, but reactions say it's anti-male.”

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ Roaming Millennial ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ Gillette ∙ toxic masculinity ∙ virtue signaling

Now, see, I was going to make nice here and just touch on the subject.

Tags: sex ∙ lesbian ∙ not all ∙ Christian ∙ Christians ∙ Chrstianity ∙ men ∙ women

Union Scum: Seasonal UPS Workers Had Paychecks Taken By Local Teamsters Chapter In Boston

Firm Who Warned America of ‘Russian Meddling’ Caught Running Fake Russia Bot Campaign

Liberal Donor Apologizes For Funding Group That Falsely Claimed Russians Supported Roy Moore In Alabama Senate Race

New Studies Show Pundits Are Wrong About Russian Social-Media Involvement in US Politics

Imagine if We Paid for Food like We Do Healthcare

How Should Facebook (and Twitter, and YouTube, and...) Decide What Speech To Allow?

The angry lawyer who went on a racist rant that went viral got kicked out of his office space — and his week is only getting worse

Angela Merkel: Nation States Must "Give Up Sovereignty" To New World Order

A year after net-neutrality’s repeal, the Internet is alive and well — and faster than ever

A Holiday Mystery: Why Did John Roberts Intervene in the Mueller Probe?

NY police say 'Muslim Community Patrol' car not sanctioned by them

New Documents Suggest The Steele Dossier Was A Deliberate Setup For Trump

Yellow Vests Becoming World Wide Movement

France: Year's 1st yellow vest event brings tear gas, fires

Eminent Domain: The Wall’s Other Problem

Must Writers Be Moral? Their Contracts May Require It

The New Congress and the Rolling Catastrophe of the US Body Politic

Fact check: What's a 'national emergency,' and can Trump declare one to get his wall?

Movies for Libertarians: Little Pink House

House Lawmakers Prepare Rollout Of Gun Control Proposal

Man Sells Junk Guns To Buy-Back Program, Buys New Gun With Cash

The Vaccination Debate

How Medicare For All Could Become the Leading Cause of Death In America

Ginsburg missing Supreme Court arguments for 1st time

Airport Security Lines Grow Across The Nation As TSA Sickout Continues

Tags: TSA ∙ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ∙ Supreme Court ∙ Medicare ∙ vaccination ∙ autism ∙ gun control ∙ national emergency ∙ morality police ∙ yellow vest ∙ eminent domain ∙ Steele Dossier ∙ Muslim Community Patrol ∙ NYPD ∙ John Roberts ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ probe\ ∙ net neutrality ∙ internet ∙ Angela Merkel ∙ sovereignty ∙ New World Order ∙ union ∙ UPS ∙ Teamsters ∙ RussiaGate ∙ Roy Moore ∙ lawyers ∙ racist

❝❝You see, I've done this before. When True Believer Christians told me I was damned and a mortal threat to their children. When conservatives told me that only one way could save the country and anything else threatened their children. When progressives told me that capitalism and individualism were dead and should stay that way for the sake of the children. When well-fed third wave feminists in designer clothes told me about how they were oppressed by the patriarchy and wouldn't have children. When pagans lectured me on the evils of monotheism and how love would save the world. Always, always, ALWAYS the pattern is exactly the same. In the absence of understanding, triviality dominates. The enlightened demand sacrifice from everyone else. "For the children" is for those living and in charge. Anyone who offers an absolute won't brook dissent. Experts are uniquely qualified to fuck the situation up beyond any hope of repair. Government is not your friend.

So you have a chance here to change your behavior, change your pattern and accept responsibility. Your choice.❞❞

— NeoWayland, from the comments of The Climate Change Watermelon Juggernaut & The Prescience Of Michael Crichton

Tags: maxims ∙ true believers ∙ Christians ∙ mortal threat ∙ children ∙ conservatives ∙ one way ∙ progressives ∙ capitalism ∙ individualism ∙ third wave feminism ∙ well-fed ∙ designer clothes ∙ evil ∙ patriarchy ∙ monotheism ∙ pagan ∙ love ∙ save the world ∙ understanding ∙ triviality ∙ enlightenment ∙ sacrifice ∙ for the children ∙ absolute ∙ dissent ∙ experts

““There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'””

— Barry Goldwater, September 16, 1981

Tags: Barry Goldwater ∙ 1981 ∙ religion ∙ religious factions

“Drag Queen Kid Desmond is Amazing recently danced at a gay bar & Lactatia the 8 year old drag queen has been praised by progressives. Drag Queens are increasingly being invited to speak at schools, so is drag the normal for children?”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Roaming Millennial ∙ sex ∙ drag queen kid ∙ progressive ∙ normal

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ tech companies ∙ Google ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ algorithm ∙ John Stossel ∙ The Creepy Line ∙ Jordan Peterson ∙ Robert Epstein

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: New York ∙ police misconduct ∙ inauguration ∙ radical ∙ CBS ∙ #MeToo ∙ Eliza Dushku ∙ sexual conduct ∙ campus ∙ reason ∙ religion ∙ deep ecology ∙ doctrine ∙ Instagram ∙ social media ∙ Democrats ∙ pork barrel ∙ earmarks ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ Middle East ∙ Russia ∙ DoJ ∙ Peter Strzok ∙ Lisa Page ∙ San Francisco ∙ expensive ∙ restaurant ∙ Congress ∙ sexual harassment ∙ organic farming ∙ climate

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: RussiaGate ∙ criminalizing ∙ Belgium ∙ Netherlands ∙ Paris ∙ riots ∙ William Barr ∙ separation of church & state ∙ Antifa ∙ violence ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Portland ∙ Tumblr ∙ NSFW ∙ Silicon Valley ∙ morality police ∙ police misconduct ∙ Georgia ∙ arrested ∙ Florida

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: textual differences ∙ new covenan ∙ Judaism ∙ Hawaiian culture and language ∙ Rome ∙ label ∙ deeds ∙ Decalogue ∙ New Testament ∙ tolerance ∙ extreme ∙ Hong Kong ∙ E pluribus unum ∙ Greece ∙ measure a man ∙ faith ∙ government ∙ Amerindians ∙ Jews ∙ Bible ∙ slavery ∙ trade ∙ religious freedom ∙ pluralism ∙ American ∙ religious virtue ∙ Christian ∙ Christianity ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ Orthodox Jews ∙ Mormons ∙ Christian Scientists

“Tech companies are compiling incredibly detailed dossiers about you.”

Tags: video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ privacy ∙ John Stossel ∙ Robert Epstein ∙ Google ∙ Facebook ∙ tech companies ∙ The Creepy Line

❝❝Progressive politics revolves around choosing the most oppressed so that everyone else can be shamed into granting extra privileges to the designated victims.❞❞

— from the private journal of NeoWayland

Tags: progressive ∙ oppressed ∙ shamed ∙ privilege ∙ designated ∙ victims

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: General Motors ∙ eminent domain ∙ Poletown Taking ∙ Pennsylvania ∙ Kathleen Kane ∙ caravan ∙ MSNBC ∙ Twitter ∙ trans activists ∙ PG&E ∙ lawsuit ∙ wildfires ∙ California ∙ hypocrites ∙ news media ∙ tech crash ∙ 2000 ∙ Obama Administration ∙ tear gas ∙ border ∙ warming trend ∙ Canada

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: George Soros ∙ anti-Semitism ∙ super villian ∙ right wingers ∙ left wingers ∙ labels

LGBT Splinter Group From Migrant Caravan Is The 1st To Arrive In Tijuana

Tags: Crux Files ∙ freedom ∙ mistake ∙ consequences ∙ government ∙ force ∙ prove himself ∙ choice & consequence ∙ excuse

Someone else decided that obviously you couldn't be trusted to make the Proper Choice.

Tags: Max Dashu ∙ ideas ∙ dangerous ∙ associates ∙ for your own good ∙ choice ∙ proper choice ∙ neo-Puritanism,

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ Roaming Millennial ∙ Victoria's Secret ∙ trans people ∙ model

So does that mean that the Decalogue has no value?

Tags: Christianity ∙ individual ∙ people ∙ pagans ∙ atheist ∙ secret of life ∙ Satanists ∙ force ∙ coercive power ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ Christian ∙ Jewish ∙ cross posted ∙ rules ∙ laws ∙ Divine ∙ Decalogue ∙ Nature ∙ World ∙ humanity ∙ colony ∙ organism ∙ cooperation ∙ Chas S. Clifton ∙ label

The FedGovs.

Tags: Larry Sharpe ∙ libertarian ∙ conservative ∙ liberal ∙ force on others ∙ 2018 ∙ governor ∙ New York

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Brett Kavanaugh ∙ Democrats ∙ media ∙ Koch brothers ∙ military action ∙ Yemen ∙ interventionism ∙ citizenship question ∙ birthright citizenship ∙ inequality ∙ caravan ∙ tolerance ∙ nuclear weapons ∙ Europe ∙ Democrats ∙ cultural differences ∙ national ID card ∙ sex

❝❝Understand that I am still torn on the subject.

But not every pregnancy results in live birth, even without abortions. Not every pregnancy comes to term.

Under those circumstances, it's hard to call abortion murder or killing babies.

---

I saw it. I also was treated to a film series in high school called Whatever Happened to the Human Race?

I come from a long line of farming stock. Death happens. It's not pretty. But it's a part of life.

Incidentally, the big reason why the US has a higher infant mortality rate than many other nations is because in other nations babies aren't always counted as "alive" until they've gotten through the first year or so.

There are a great many things that our country does that are not civilized. I'm pretty sure that if I were deciding what is and is not acceptable to society, there would be complaints. Public nudity wouldn't go over well. Neither would removing body parts from those who abuse children.

All that being said, if abortions were not government subsidized, I suspect there would be fewer. I think that is a more workable solution than banning abortions outright.

---

Well, that depends. For the most part, yes.

But let's acknowledge that is an artificial distinction. For example, my mother, stepsibs, and I in accordance with my stepdad's wishes from years before decided not to extend his life. Those last couple of years, he was on a feeding tube and incapable of communicating. Years before that, he had lost the ability to understand what was going on around him.

So yes, it was a death from willful causes. But at that point, what kind of life was it?

On another board, I've had talks with people with terminal illnesses who were considering assisted suicide.There were also surviving family members of people who had done that. What kind of life was it? Would you want someone to live with pain and having their body fall apart?

This is not a clear issue. We should accept that if nothing else. People die. Babies die. How much do we mourn? How much do we blame?

There's no absolute here. We should stop pretending that there is.

---

It is a distinction, but I am not convinced it has bearing. It's a while before a baby has awareness of self and even longer before the beginning of language.

I agree it's a fuzzy area and that there are many moral questions that can't be easily answered.

It gets even more complicated when considering the implications. If we accept the sense of self as the defining point of where killing is and is not ethical, what does that say about our companion animals? Or our food animals?

---

I'm not trying to justify abortion. I'm saying it's not easy to justify outlawing abortion and it raises certain moral issues.

The sense of self is different from perception. Humans develop a sense of self as we mature. We can also lose that sense of self.

---

Admittedly it is a fuzzy concept and psychologists argue over it. At it's most basic, it's a recognizing the distinction between "I" and "Other." It's a mental framework that probably arises from brain structure. It's the key to individuality.

As a libertarian, I don't give "society" an ethical justification to do squat. That includes ending lives and mandating clothes in public.

Here's the thing, if we do recognize rights, the only workable way is to make those rights individual rights. Not granted because of some label or gifted by government. You have rights because you are an individual and you share those rights with other individuals.

At that point, we're really defining "personhood" by individuality. That means you must be functionally an individual and accept that others are individual too.

Without individuality, we're hunks of flesh with automatic responses. With individuality,we can choose.❞❞

Tags: abortion ∙ individual ∙ choose ∙ Other ∙ rights ∙ terminal illness ∙ society ∙ justification ∙ infant mortality ∙ awareness of self

This is the problem.

Tags: Shawn Herles ∙ World ∙ us vs them ∙ division ∙ dehumanizes ∙ Christian ∙ Druids ∙ Satanists ∙ religious justifications ∙ dualistic ∙ good ∙ evil ∙ religion ∙ cross posted

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ MGTOW PLANET ∙ Camille Paglia ∙ feminism ∙ Western Civilization ∙ collapse

Religions are created by people claiming to speak for the Divine.

Tags: religion ∙ Divine ∙ universal rules ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ E. E. Smith ∙ freely chosen ∙ invisible overlord ∙ responsibility ∙ secret of life

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ Pat Condell ∙ Brexit ∙ Bookworm

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ Border Patrol ∙ immigration ∙ Maggie McNeil

❝❝That is a phenomenally inaccurate and simplistic view.

---

"Run by blacks…"

They are run by Democrats who have spent the last 50+ years telling minority groups that they are victims and don't have to be responsible.

Gods, the absolute last last thing you should do is blame skin color.

Do you want to make things worse?

---

Of course you're blaming skin color.

Those "heritable characteristics" vanish when you start adjusting for quality of education, early childhood environment, and family support.

Next time read the disclaimers and qualitifications qualifications.

---

Yes, yes they do. Check the studies again. Better yet, follow it to the inevitable conclusion. If the "heritable characteristics" exist and are not modified by environmental factors, then by your logic "blacks" are inherently inferior.

Think about that very carefully.

---

The fact that you are relying on IQ tells me quite a bit.

The IQ tests are culturally biased. What's more, studies from the late 1970s forward have shown that the tests are sub-culturally biased. Those scores are significantly linked to quality of education, early childhood environment, and family support.

Yes, those things I mentioned earlier.

What's more, there's evidence of an inner-city sub-culture that is adamantly against doing well in school or on tests.

---

Look, here's the problem.

You're defining people by skin color, no matter what their individual accomplishments.

Benjamin Banneker, Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver, Daniel Hale Williams , Booker T. Washington, James West, John J. Jasper, Daniel "Chappie" James Jr., Thomas Sowell, Huey P. Newton, Carter G. Woodson, W. E. B. Du Bois, Malcolm X, those are just some of the remarkable American men I remember off the top of my head.

---

Those averages only matter if you've allowed for all other factors.

For example, how many sub-Sararan sub-Saharan nations have a free market based economy? How many recognize the rights of the individual?

I already told you a third theory. There are significant cultural and environmental differences. What's more, put any skin color in unfavorable circumstances and watch how fast the "average" drops.

---

Unless a government recognizes & defends individual rights, corruption follows as surely as night follows day.

Those white South Africans you mention had special privilege and exploited people because they had the power to do so. When things changed, there was no living memory of anything except special privileges. The corruption stayed and the exploited targets changed.

A version of the same problem is happening in those Democrat controlled cities that you incorrectly insist on labeling "black run." Recognized rights have long given way to special privilege, and no one remembers anything else.

---

I didn't say anything about it not being their fault. I specifically said Democrats "have spent the last 50+ years telling minority groups that they are victims and don't have to be responsible."

Not so long ago, the Republican idea of race relations was to get out of the way and tell people to take responsibility. That's no longer the case.

I don't care about blame. I just care about fixing the problem. And you are making things worse.

You're making the Democrat case for them. You're saying that "blacks" will fail if left to themselves.

---

You mean other than the examples I gave you?

If you are interested in statistics, try the upward mobility of "blacks" between 1900 and 1960, before government interfered. The welfare statistics and the rise of single mother families are particularly telling. These have been well documented.

On the whole, two parent households do better over time. When the immediate cost of having children is reduced by government intervention, then a single parent household is less likely to move up the economic ladder.

---

I told you some of what was necessary for a society's success. Recognition and protection of individual rights. A free market economy. Those things are rare.

Those things are also not dependent on skin color.

I don't recognize "black" societies, I recognize human societies. Almost every single time when someone talks about "black" societies or "black"nations or "black" cities, it's about racism.

There's one race and it's human.

---

I said no such thing.

I talked about political systems designed to exploit victimhood and grant privilege.

That has almost nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with denying rights.

---

People designed those systems. Generations of people over centuries, trading, interacting, arguing, fighting, failing, and trying again. It wasn't because of one skin color even if you could define "white."

---

Because I said that people designed the systems, for good or ill?

Because I pointed out that it took generations?

Because I pointed out that you can't define "white" anymore than you can define "black?"

You lost this one the second you used skin color as a substitute for individual merit.

---

You haven't managed to identify any significant differences that aren't environmental in nature.

Instead, you keep focusing on skin color, a poor indicator under the best of circumstances.

There are hundreds of other factors, starting with how many parents the child has and if the child is raised in a loving environment. That doesn't even include the social factors I've already touched on.

As long as you focus on skin color, you're just perpetuating the problems.

The only way the question is reduced to a binary condition is by focusing on insignificant measurements such as skin color.

---

We've already established that IQ is culturally biased. There are also strong indications that IQ is sub-culturally biased as well. That means that part of what IQ measures is cultural conformity.

That's assuming that IQ is a relevant measure of intelligence to begin with. There are theories that one measurement of intelligence isn't nearly enough.

Like it or not, you have to allow for environmental and cultural factors in IQ scores.

---

Me and about two thirds of the researchers studying the possibility.

I suggest you do a web search for IQ cultural bias.

---

First, it's not the "warrior gene." A variant is popularly (and inaccurately) referred to as the "warrior gene." Technically the variant produces less MAMO MAOA .

Second, the evidences seems to show that the people with a low level of MAMO MAOA show higher levels of aggression when faced with social stressors such as ostracism, exclusion, or overwhelming loss.

You know, environmental factors.

ETA: Sorry about that, spell check fixed something I didn't want fixed.

---

With environmental factors, yes.

Would you like a list of genetic variations that are activated by environmental stressors?

---

I don't lie.

You keep stressing differences that derive from environmental factors.

Yet you keep blaming skin color.

---

Remember when I mentioned "family support?" Have you accounted for the incredible cultural pressure to succeed at schools and testing?

---

Yep, Obama was all about skin color. And his solutions worked out just so well for everyone, right?

There's a line I've been throwing around for a couple years now.

❝There were so many patting themselves on the back and proud that a black man had been elected President that no one bothered to ask if a good man had been elected President.❞

---

The politics are a much bigger part of the problem than the skin color.

It's the politics I blame.

---

And there's your problem.

You think it's about America.

It's about freedom.

---

Who said anything about pretending it's not there?

I'm disputing why it is there.

---

Actually I did. I talked briefly about incentivizing single parenthood and telling minorities that they are perpetual victims and how they don't have to take responsibility.

---

No, it wasn't the same environment.

I specified "telling minorities."

Politics are bad enough, but the politics are of victimhood are just despicable.

---

Because they don't have the same incentives.

Do you have any idea how much has been written and spoken about this over the last sixty years?

You might start with Goldwater's objections to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

---

I believe they are indoctrinated to believe that they could only be victims no matter what.

---

Talked with more than a few. Slept with a couple.

I'm a bilagáana born on the res. I grew up next to the Diné, the Hopi, and the Havasupai. Spent a lot of time in Phoenix, Tucson, San Diego, and Albuquerque.

Still want to lecture me on the "races?"

---

Gods, you really are so ignorant that you can't be bothered to do a web search.

Roughly translated, bilagáana means "white man." There's more to it than that, especially for one born on the reservation. I'm what happens when Louisiana farming stock takes root in the Four Corners region.

---

Check again.

I never denied cultural differences, I just pointed out that they alone don't determine IQ or aggression.

---

I don't think I've done it in this thread, but I have pointed out that there is one race and it's human.

"Peoples" is a completely different concept and doesn't usually rest on minor genetic differences. The term is slightly more accurate than tribes.

Go back and reread what I wrote on this thread. I started by pointing out that what was being passed off as racial and genetic differences were actually due to environmental and cultural factors.

---

Ah, someone is making the right points.

First, IQ is not an objective measurement. One of my favorite examples is the Diné, their culture doesn't recognize time and distance as linear. With the possibility of multiple intelligences, things get more complicated. Gross motor coordination doesn't translate to spatial mathematical. Yes, I know the theory has problems like leaving out fine motor control, but this isn't the place.

We've not defined intelligence very well. There's a difference between following a recipe and walking in a kitchen just to whip up amazing food. IQ tests look for proven solutions, not for that creative spark. Sometimes that mostly works, sometimes not.

One set of parents can produce a musical genius, a good accountant, and a total slacker. It's impossible to say if a specific genetic line might produce. We know from domesticated animals that some traits will probably breed true, but we have to allow for environment and chance. We can't say that this family always produces good Rotarians and never any gamers. We can't say that every puppy from that Labrador will be good with kids. If you expand it to a group, the uncertainty grows too.

---

Interesting. You get to keep your preconceptions but I have to give mine up.

Okay, let's go back to basics. Part of science is eliminating variables.

The people we're comparing, are they on the same economic level? Did they have the same number of parents? Did they attend the same or comparable schools? Are they married? Do they have the same number of kids? Is their debt level the same? Is their education level the same? Do they live in the same or comparable neighborhoods?

We know that every single one of these environmental factors can influence someone's mental abilities, their tastes, their chosen activities, and their obligations.

And these are just the big ones.

Otherwise you're comparing apples from last year to next year's bananas. There's no way to establish a baseline.

There's no real comparison until you can account for most of the major variables.

---

I'm telling you (again) that until you can account for environmental differences, your measurements are useless.

There's a difference between a Walmart special and a finely made bookshelf. You can't just say that the one that is forty-one inches wide is better than the thirty-five inch one. You don't have enough information to judge.

---

It's a trick question.

It presupposes that there aren't any other variables that matter.

At the very least, acknowledge that the quality of schools makes a difference.

Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.

D.A. Jim Trotter: Does that mean that you can't answer it?

Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question, it's impossible to answer.

D.A. Jim Trotter: Impossible because you don't know the answer!

Mona Lisa Vito: Nobody could answer that question!

D.A. Jim Trotter: Your Honor, I move to disqualify Ms. Vito as a "expert witness"!

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Can you answer the question?

Mona Lisa Vito: No, it is a trick question!
     — My Cousin Vinny

---

From my second response to you on this thread, I've pointed out again and again that you can not eliminate cultural and environmental factors.

The differences that you chose to highlight directly resulted in part from the culture and environment.

These are facts that we know and can easily be verified through a web search.

Children from single parent households tend to do worse at school and hold lower paying jobs.

Children from abusive households tend to do worse at school and hold lower paying jobs.

Single parent households tend to stay at lower income levels.

Some schools fail so much that most of their students can't read, write, or do basic math.

If children don't have enough to eat, they don't do well in school.

If people don't have shelter, they tend to have more health problems.

How much did environment and culture play a part? There is no way to know unless you can eliminate variables.

There's no comparison unless you can account for most of the major variables. This is true in science. This is true in statistics. This is true in life.

Your question makes no sense because there can be no comparison.

---

But you haven't presented evidence.

You've gone out of your way to dismiss the very idea that the culture and environment can have any possible influence on the differences you chose to highlight.

All you've done is lay out a premise that presupposes that no other factors can change what you choose to measure.

It's not science. It's not statistics. It's not even logically verifiable.

It's just prejudice.

---

You don't have evidence. You have observation, but you haven't shown cause or correlation because you have not allowed for environmental and cultural factors.

It's not even a matter of "interpretation." You've deliberately chosen one measurement and claimed that it defines the whole discussion. Can you say selection bias?

---

You can put tomato seeds in a salt shaker for nine months. That doesn't mean you'll be harvesting.

---

But I don't blame skin color at all. That's when I talk about this at all. Most people don't want to deal with uncomfortable truths.

I talk about politics, history, and the lies of government. Also basic economics and self-ownership.

---

Self-ownership and responsibility are a big part of what I write and talk about.

I also talk about strategy that exploits the politics of victimhood. I point out that the people who don't accept those lies from politicos and technocrats do better over time. Usually better than their parents. Which used to be a measurement of success in this nation.

A significant number of politicos (easily more than half) use the message that people are victims and their friend, the government, can help.

I tell people that government is not your friend, no matter how much the politicos say that it is.

That's not making excuses. That's showing that most politicos want problems they can stage manage. The politicos can't do that by solving problems.

---

It's a loaded question.

The premise is insufficient.

---

Neighbor, you're telling me that I am dealing in absolutes when I just listed seven major variables that we know affect intelligence and ability. These variables change everybody no matter what their skin color, nationality, sex, or ice cream preference.

---

I can stop you with nothing more than a few words.

Think about it. You're taking offense at what I write on a website when all I am really saying is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…"

You would deny that?

---

I'm not defending today's mess.

I've written against it.

But (and this is the important bit), you're still defining people by skin color instead of what they are individually.

There's a phrase about "content of their character" that comes to mind.

---

I know, you keep defining people by skin color.

---

Tell me, what nationality are "blacks?"

If a "Chinese" has been granted American citizenship, when does he stop being "Chinese?" Three seconds after? Three generations? When he changes his name to Jones?

If Jesus Fernandez was born in Michigan and barely speaks Spanish, is he "Mexican?"

Or American?

---

I didn't say anything about stopping the Left with words.

I said I could stop you.

And I have.

---

Think you so?

Look at what's happened.

I've held my own against you and your "friend." Along the way, we've discussed history, psychology, morality, biology, and ethics. We've done it in real time for a few hours, and right now you are focused on taking me down, not in proving that "blacks" are inferior.

And all you can do is tell me that I don't deserve my citizenship.

You got stopped.

---

"The fact that blacks are not us."

Pretty sure my neighbors would disagree. Pretty sure your neighbors would too.

---

"Wait until your neighbors are Hindus, Muslims, Mexicans, or Asians."

Um, they are.

---

I could ask my across-the-street neighbor, but I'm pretty sure she's happy with her husband. I don't know their kids that well.

---

Because they are us.

The commonalities outweigh the differences.

These barriers, these labels that people like you keep using, they separate us. The labels keep us apart.

❝Those are the same stars, and that is the same moon, that look down upon your brothers and sisters, and which they see as they look up to them, though they are ever so far away from us, and each other.❞
     — Sojourner Truth

---

The Hopi are surrounded by all sides by the Diné. Can you tell me the genetic differences between the Hopi and the Diné? Good luck, because they've been intermarrying for a long time.

So what are their national characteristics?

As I said, I'm an American. I'm a mix. Part of my ancestry is Irish, part of it is English, part of it is Creole, part of it is German, part of it is Russian, and there's probably stuff on both sides of the bed that isn't officially acknowledged.

What are my national genetic characteristics?

I'm pretty sure I could father a child with any fertile human female if we tried hard enough. That's sort of how the species works.

And that's the important thing. We're one species, one "race." Throw us together and those distinctions fade. We get down and funky. We rut. We mix our genes.

It doesn't stop there. Ideas mix too. We argue with each other. We try to one up each other. We try. We look at what the other guy is doing. We borrow what works and tweak it a bit.

Synchronicity and syncretism happen, no matter how much you want "purity."

---

I'm not trying to change the labels.

I'm pointing out the truths.

Those labels are controlling your life.

---

"Truth and lies don't miscegenate."

Miscegenation has nothing to do with truth and lies and everything to do with sex and children.

Truth is subject to change. There was a time when people thought the speed of light was infinite. Now we know it's about 186,000 miles per second. In a vacuum. Put it through an atmosphere or water and it's something else.

We're human. That humanity matters more than any "racial" difference. It's why there are children of "mixed race." As time and people go on, the differences fade.

Until we meet a new population and it starts all over again.

I don't lie. I serve veritas.❞❞

Tags: Democrats ∙ minorities ∙ victims ∙ responsibility ∙ skin color ∙ cyberscare ∙ heritable characteristics ∙ MAOA ∙ cultural differences ∙ intelligence ∙ environment ∙ IQ ∙ culturally biased ∙ education ∙ family ∙ individual rights ∙ schools ∙ Republican ∙ two parent households ∙ single mother households ∙ human ∙ race ∙ racial discrimination ∙ racial identity

Years ago I came up with a crazy tax scheme that was so nutty it might work. Here's the revised version.

Tags: community ∙ commonality ∙ adaptation

There are valid criticisms against Trump. But he's made his career on bad press.

Tags: The Label™ ∙ bisexual ∙ bisexuality ∙ homosexual ∙ homosexuality ∙ lesbian ∙ society

People can do most things on their own without government help, direction, or control.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ trust ∙ none of the above ∙ disrupt ∙ press ∙ publicity ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ progressives ∙ talking points

“Will Witt went to Santa Barbara to ask people what they thought of the new law banning plastic straws. Check it out!”

Tags: PragerU ∙ Will Witt ∙ Santa Barbara ∙ California ∙ plastic ∙ straws ∙ virtue signaling ∙ illegal immigrants

I'm not something less, I'm something else.

Tags: monotheism ∙ dualistic ∙ IS ∙ IS NOT ∙ GOOD ∙ NOT GOOD ∙ works ∙ rule ∙ different ∙ something less ∙ something else ∙ Christianity ∙ Christians ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ traditional values

❝❝Okay, time number three. We've been through this twice before.

For something with no moral relativism, there's an awful lot or relative morality going on. Of course there's the Catholic Church mess going on in Pittsburg right now. Granted, that was priests breaking the laws of "God" and man. But there are plenty of other examples.

Child labor used to be not only allowed, but justified by people quoting the Bible. Women were denied property rights and the right to vote. Slavery was justified and encouraged before some good people decided that not only was it wrong but it should be abolished.

You cite the Decalogue, but number one on that list denies any other religion or faith system. Using that, at best non-Christians (okay, non-Abrahamics) exist only at the sufferance of their "betters," to be indulged as children and tolerated for their misunderstanding.

If there is one thing I wish I could literally pound into Christian heads, it's this: Christianity is not the source of all that is good and righteous in our society. Other cultures and other faiths have contributed heavily. It's amazing that I even have to mention this where one house of the national legislature is called the Senate and the other has a ceremonial fasces. Syncretism happens and we're better for it.

We're not measured by our faith, but how we treat others. There is this urge particularly among evangelical Christians to meddle in the lives of others. You yourself cite "the" Native American experience. It wasn't "the," different tribes and groups were treated differently. Usually that led to stealing land, women, and children. Not to mention Indian wars, relocation, and reservations. How is that higher morality? Yet the American treatment of "Indians" was usually justified by Bible quotes.

I could go on and on but I won't. The vice or virtue is in the individual, not the label. By pagan lights, monotheisms have their own sins which they seldom answer for.

Yet there is hope. The "Golden Rule" is the true keystone of Western civilization. It exists in many faiths and cultures. Arguably it is core of the best ethical civilizations. Applied correctly, it can do everything that your Judeo-Christian values can. And we won't be arguing over whose morality should be "in charge."❞❞

Tags: Bookworm ∙ monotheism ∙ Christianity ∙ Decalogue ∙ Catholic Church ∙ child labor ∙ women ∙ rights ∙ Amerindians ∙ non-Christian ∙ good ∙ righteous ∙ Golden Rule ∙ cross posted

❝❝The problem with making the personal political is that you drag everyone around you into politics, whether they want to be or not.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ personal ∙ choice

““There are two basic kinds of terrorists. The amateurs will be deterred or detected by even basic security measures. The professionals will figure out how to evade even the most stringent measures. I've repeatedly said that the two things that have made flying safer since 9/11 are reinforcing the cockpit doors and persuading passengers that they need to fight back. Everything beyond that isn't worth it.””
     — Bruce Schneier, Don't Fear the TSA Cutting Airport Security. Be Glad That They're Talking about It.

Tags: Bruce Schneier ∙ terrorists ∙ amateurs ∙ security ∙ professionals ∙ cockpit doors ∙ passengers ∙ fight back

❝❝There's a vast difference between a character who happens to be X and a X character.

The emphasis should be on character, not the label. Character is about the human condition, the label is about the labeled condition.

Next, it's acting. Fictional. If the actor is good enough, they can play the heavy and the hero. They can play the pauper and the prince. And they can play whatever sexual orientation is necessary.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ character ∙ label ∙ human ∙ condition ∙ fiction ∙ sexual orientation

The "millennial whoop" and other problems.

Tags: video ∙ PragerU ∙ guest content ∙ masculinity ∙ toxic masculinity ∙ good men ∙ Allie Stuckey

Tags: video ∙ Pundit Class ∙ guest content ∙ Rowan Atkinson ∙ reformsection5.org.uk ∙ comedy

Tags: Apple ∙ Alex Jones ∙ inforwars ∙ YouTube ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ islamist ∙ anti-Semitism ∙ Antifa ∙ anti-white ∙ hypocrites ∙ choice

““A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me.””
     — Frederick Douglass

Tags: Frederick Douglass ∙ insult ∙ gentleman ∙ man

❝❝Most of the claims of Republican racism are because the Republicans involved didn't see any reason to grant special privilege when people already had rights recognized by law.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Republican ∙ Republicans ∙ racism ∙ privilege ∙ rights

❝❝If you wonder where radfems got the idea that they are living in an unforgiving patriarchy, a rape society, a "man's world" that degrades women, it's because that's the way their "allies" have treated them.

They just think it's everyone.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ RadFem ∙ patriarchy ∙ rape culture ∙ man's world ∙ degrades women

❝❝No, they are not monopolies.

When I sit down at a computer, I don't have to go through Facebook to check the weather or see what is happening at this site. If I wanted to message someone on my iPod or iPad, I don't have to use Twitter.

With AT&T, if you were in an area covered you had no choice. It was your regional Bell company and AT&T or nothing. The breakup fixed that, you could choose your phone company. And today, if I am not in range of the right cell tower, my phone still works as long as I am in range of a cell tower.

Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, all got big by offering something the competition did not have. No one was forced. Competition is the only way to reduce their hold. And the competition, like all competition, has to offer something more than "just as good as."

For a while, iOS and macOSX had software hooks so that Facebook and Twitter had easier access. That's no longer necessarily true, some of Apple's customers didn't want their data shared by companies that weren't trustworthy.

Government intervention is the last thing we need. There are already politicos who complain about "fake news" that isn't fake, it's just not what the politicos want you to think about. From the news in the last couple of days, it seems Twitter is going after conservative and libertarian users. Do we really want a world where government decides what may and may not be said?

Oh, one other thing. Monopolies rely on government support and intervention. Start regulating and you just planted a monopoly.

---

I agree it's a mess.

To get a site, you have to register a domain name. Then you have to get server space. If you use a company like Wordpress, you agree to carry their ads on your site in exchange for a reduced rate or free use on their server space. If you go on your own, you find a web host (like MacHighway) and you have more control over the site and advertising.

Think of it like a storefront that you have to rent. Depending on the terms of the lease, that is how much service your "landlord" provides and how much you provide to your visitors.

If Twitter provides the ability to block people you don't like, I agree that it should be available to ALL users. But the platform is not public property. The "landlord" can block out who they want when they want. But they shouldn't be shielded from the consequences of their actions. They are liable if they provide different services and benefits to their users. If it's a "free" service, then all "free" users should have the same benefits as all other "free" users. The "landlord" can ban conservatives, but if they allow conservatives (or one specific high profile conservative), then that person should have the same rights and benefits.

ETA: The real question is if the platform should ban offensive content and how that should be defined.❞❞

Tags: virtue signaling ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Apple ∙ server space ∙ Google ∙ iOS ∙ domain name ∙ macOSX ∙ competition ∙ government intervention ∙ fake news ∙ politicos ∙ conservative ∙ libertarian ∙ government ∙ Wordpress ∙ MacHighway ∙ lease ∙ offensive

“How do you remove the memory of a particularly bad emperor from the history books? Or what if your brother is just so annoying that you can't stand the sight of him anymore, and don't want to share power? You perform a damnatio memoriae, erase all inscriptions, destroy all public images, and pretend as if he never existed.”

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ latintutorial ∙ damnatio memoriae ∙ history ∙ cross posted

❝❝The problem with attacking the label is that there are always remarkable individuals far beyond the box you try to cram them into. Nor are they the exception to the rule.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ label ∙ individual ∙ exceptions

❝❝There was a late night bull session I attended. One very drunk person announced, very authoritatively, "Socialism is jealousy."

Then she passed out.

She may have had a point.

---

I'll go you one farther. There are studies that show primates have a strong sense of fairness. Some other studies show the fairness idea is linked to play in wolves and coyotes. I've seen speculation but no mention of studies that the idea exists in elephants as well. Taken together, these may indicate that it is part of the biology, at least for social animals.

---

I'd say it relies on control and orientation in time. Given that it's extremely difficult to control other's behavior except through force, someone who is past-orientated will choose coercion and false signals. Especially if their behavior was controlled in the past.

Future orientation and risk taking are more likely to depend on cooperation. Especially if one doesn't have the resources to pull off the future alone.

Going forward, power with beats power over. But someone stuck in the past won't see that. As for the "leaders," they're gaming the system and don't practice what they preach. "But just do as I say, don't do as I do," as the old Genesis song says.

---

❝Everyone who lives in America is a socialist to some degree.❞

True. But did they choose, or was it chosen for them "for the greater good?" In many cases before they were born? Did they ever have an alternative choice? Were they even allowed to think about it?

That's how socialism works. It's always involuntary except for those calling the shots.

❝It’s just that the rank and file among us don’t have $12 billion to buy votes from farmers we’ve screwed over.❞

If he had bought votes, the farmers wouldn't be screwed, would they? You've moved beyond mixing metaphors here, you're mixing conspiracy theories.

---

Your premise about vote buying is wrong. There's plenty to criticize about Trump's tariff strategy (which I've done), but there was no vote buying. That's the problem with most of the accusations against Trump. The loudest people ignore what Trump has done and blame him for things he hasn't done. You can't buy votes after the fact. And you keep overlooking all the other people adversely affected by the tariffs.

I used the word choosing because we are supposed to live in a representative government. Socialism removes choice. Socialism removes freedom. Socialism removes prosperity. The only reason why the United States works economically is because of the partial free market. The free market works. The free market works better than anything else in history. The only reason Americans can afford even partial socialism is because of the abundance produced by the free market.

So are Americans socialist? Yes, but not from choice. Someone had to do it to them. Someone had to lie to them about what they could get. Someone else had to pay the bills. Would Americans choose socialist programs? I don't think they would if they understood the costs.

I didn't claim you wrote anything about choice. I asked about choice. That's not words in your mouth, that's a question you don't want to answer.❞❞

Tags: sociaism ∙ choice ∙ primates ∙ fairness ∙ prosperity ∙ freedom ∙ wolves ∙ coyotes ∙ elephants ∙ biology ∙ control ∙ orientation in time ∙ coercion ∙ false signals ∙ future ∙ past ∙ power with vs power over ∙ involuntary ∙ bought votes

“Tell a joke now and who knows who you might offend? Identity politics is taking the fun out of just about everything. This is – no fooling – a very serious problem. Actor/Comedian Owen Benjamin explains why and what needs to be done about it”

Tags: video ∙ PragerU ∙ comedy ∙ Owen Benjamin

❝❝Since the last time I read your stuff, I've been racking my brain to remember any libertarians who "pandered" to pedophiles. I can't remember any. "Consenting adults" is a big priority.

As for "pandering" to homosexuals, well, we also "pander" to Jews, women, Rotarians, Red Sox fans, and classic car owners. Not to mention people with piercings, people with tattoos, people with nine toes, and almost anyone else you can name.

If you're threatened by "live and let live," by all means run away.

---

These are two different issues. The only one that I'm denying is that libertarians pander to pedophiles.

You want to use it as the modern political equivalent of blood libel.

It's probably because I am pagan, but I've found keeping minors at an arm's length when it comes to religion and sexuality solves more problems than it causes. It's one of those necessary compromises that keeps neighbors.

---

I think you'll find that most small "l" libertarians like me consider it a minor issue, if at all.

I will point out that the laws are not self consistent. Driving at 16 (some farm states allowed it at 14 in rural areas), voting and draft eligibility at 18, drinking age of 21, well, those are just some of the best known examples.

I've pointed out before that the whole extended childhood thing is mostly a post WWII American urban phenomena. Attitudes towards "child brides" were very different a few generations ago.

---

Can you tell me what the "American" position is on taxes? Does every single American agree with that? What about public schools? And immigration?

I call myself libertarian with a small "l" because when I say "classic liberal" most folks in the U.S. don't know what I am talking about. It has nothing to do with a political party and everything to do with liberty.

I believe that the freedom to choose is the mark of an adult human. Make of that what you will.

---

Classic liberalism predates the founding of the American republic. That is why I distinguish between "Libertarianism" and "libertarianism." Big "L" versus small "l." Party platform versus individual responsibility.

If you'll look closely at what I've written, I've always stressed "consenting adults" when it comes to sexual practices.

I pointed out that even the All Wise Forces of Government & Society® can't decide when a child is responsible or not.❞❞

Tags: libertarian ∙ pedophiles ∙ homosexuals ∙ Jews ∙ women ∙ Rotarians ∙ Red Sox fans ∙ classic car owners ∙ piercings ∙ tattoos ∙ nine toes ∙ driving age ∙ age of consent ∙ classic liberalism ∙ American republic ∙ consenting adults ∙ sex

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ FOSTA ∙ SESTA ∙ online freedom

❝❝For years, I've asked the question what makes a "hate crime" worse than another crime for the same offense. I've never gotten a straight answer.

Well, here it is. "Hate crimes" are absolutely justified if it's for the correct reason. Thou shalt not dissent from the approved narrative. Victims are victims unless they strike out against the Man as declared by progressive experts. And collective victimhood counts, especially if it acts against collective oppression. The individual MUST be subservient to the label, all in the name of The Greater Good and to Protect the Children.

So now we know. If it offends progressives, anything is justified so feelings can be protected and any questionable behavior can be ruthlessly suppressed.

Yep, definitely about the hate there.❞❞

Tags: hate crime ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ victims ∙ The Man ∙ individual ∙ subservient to the label ∙ The Greater Good ∙ protect the children ∙ questionable behavior ∙ ruthlessly suppressed

““It is amazing how many of the intelligentsia call it 'greed' to want to keep what you have earned, but not greed to want to take away what somebody else has earned, and let politicians use it to buy votes.””
     — Thomas Sowell

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ intelligentsia ∙ greed ∙ earned ∙ take away ∙ buy votes ∙ politicos

““Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?””
     — Thomas Sowell

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ fair share ∙ fairness ∙ social justice

““Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.””
     — Thomas Sowell

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ social history ∙ worked ∙ sounded good

““If you cannot achieve equality of performance among people born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, how realistic is it to expect to achieve it across broader and deeper social divisions?””
     — Thomas Sowell

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ equality ∙ performance ∙ social divisions

Tags: maxims ∙ shame ∙ silence ∙ uncomfortable ∙ questions

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ children ∙ demonic realms ∙ faith

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ ridiculous ∙ decisions ∙ third parties ∙ wrong ∙ bright ideas ∙ Left

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ new generation ∙ invasion ∙ barbarians ∙ civilized

““Social justice is a surveillance culture, a snitch culture. The constant vigilance on the part of my colleagues and friends did me in. That’s why I’m delivering sushi and pizza. Not that I’m complaining. It’s honest work, and it’s led me to rediscover how to interact with people in the real world. I am a kinder and more respectful person now that I’m not regularly on social media attacking people for not being “kind” and “respectful.”””
     — Barrett Wilson, I Was the Mob Until the Mob Came for Me

Tags: Barrett Wilson ∙ social justice ∙ snitch culture ∙ surveillance culture ∙ vigilance ∙ honest work ∙ kind ∙ respectful

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ Roaming Millennial ∙ abortion ∙ sex ∙ birth control ∙ Roe vs. Wade ∙ Tomi Lahren ∙ Michelle Wolf ∙ pregnancy ∙ pro-life ∙ pro-choice

““Weighing benefits against costs is the way most people make decisions – and the way most businesses make decisions, if they want to stay in business. Only in government is any benefit, however small, considered to be worth any cost, however large.””
     — Thomas Sowell

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ benefits ∙ costs ∙ decisions ∙ business ∙ government

❝❝More and more I'm convinced that one of the greatest and most destructive evils humanity has produced is Meddling For Your Own Good.❞❞
     — NeoWayland, Discussion on morality, sex, nudity, and pagan festivals

Tags: maxims ∙ destructive ∙ evil ∙ meddle ∙ for your own good

Tags: video ∙ John Stossel ∙ ReasonTV ∙ plastic ∙ child ∙ projects

New publication makes it easier

Tags: maxims ∙ FamousFeminists ∙ second wave feminism ∙ third wave feminism ∙ feminism ∙ perpetual victim ∙ fame ∙ book sales ∙ political power

““The word ‘racism’ is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything — and demanding evidence makes you a ‘racist.’””
     — Thomas Sowell

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ racism ∙ racist

““To believe in personal responsibility would be to destroy the whole special role of the anointed, whose vision casts them in the role of rescuers of people treated unfairly by ‘society.’””
     — Thomas Sowell

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ responsibility ∙ anointed ∙ vision ∙ rescuers

❝❝I suspect that many other problems that second and third wave feminists faced happened because certain men took advantage. These (sleaze ball) men said the appropriate things, acted properly in public, and attended the right meetings. But it was all a show, manipulating the second wavers into sex and other things. Then these certain (scumbag) men went on to their next conquests all while convincing everyone else that they supported women and feminism. The third wave misandry that followed was a natural reaction.❞❞
     — NeoWayland, feminism (second wave)

Tags: sex ∙ second wave feminism ∙ third wave feminism ∙ male feminists ∙ feminism

❝❝Unfortunately I keep finding more and more proof for my theory. Practically the only reason "male feminists" exist is so they can take advantage of feminists. Exceptions are so very hard to find.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: feminism ∙ male feminists ∙ maxims

❝❝Abortion is one of those things I have mixed feelings on.

First, even in this modern day, every pregnancy may not result in live birth, even with the best actions of the parents and the doctors. I say this because many conservatives act as if it were not so.

Second, even a potential human life should be more than gulp-a-pill and POOF it's gone. Assuming the sex is consensual, there is no reason that both partners should not take precautions if they don't want a child.

Third, ❝Unless it's with me, who you have sex with, how you have sex, and how many times you have sex is frankly none of my business. Likewise, unless it is sex with me, I'm not responsible for the consequences.❞
— NeoWayland's lexicon, sex

Fourth, no agency or entity that receives taxpayer funds should provide abortion or abortion counseling. I know they'll say that taxpayer funds are never used for either, but providing any money just frees other funds for those uses. It's one of those legal fictions that lets politicos skirt responsibility.

Fifth, there is a right of privacy, although not as defined by Roe vs. Wade. It's there in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and (yes) the Fourteenth Amendments.❞❞

Tags: abortion ∙ pregnancy ∙ live birth ∙ sex ∙ agency ∙ taxpayer funds ∙ right of privacy ∙ Roe vs. Wade ∙ Third Amendment ∙ Fourth Amendment ∙ Fifth Amendment ∙ Ninth Amendment ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ Fourteenth Amendment

❝❝Given how some absolutely insist that any accusations of sexual impropriety must be treated as unquestioned truth, I'd argue that we've regressed.

Sometimes people lie. I don't think that is very hard to understand. We shouldn't base justice on lies. That's not hard to understand either.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: sexual impropriety ∙ truth ∙ lie ∙ justice

❝❝You are aware that you just tried to shame me into keeping quiet and not offer a dissenting opinion, aren't you?

It's only shame if I accept the premise.

I did not deny that discrimination and oppression takes place.

Now, let's look at what I actually did.

I said people had tried to shame and shun me because of my sexuality, faith, and politics.

You know, like you tried to do.

I didn't proclaim my victimhood gave me the power to command others.

You know, like you tried to do.

It's only shame if I accept the premise.

I refuse to give blanket special privilege because of proclaimed victimhood.

If an individual wants help, I'll give what I think I can. If a vague class demands constant unquestioned deference because of some poorly defined list of potential offenses that may have been committed on alternate Tuesdays, I'll probably laugh.

The World needs heroes more than it needs victims.

I despise the politics of victimhood. That always ALWAYS means a hierarchy and oh so carefully deciding who has it worse. It's never about injustice, it's about injustice shown to a particular class. Injustice against other groups gets downplayed if not ignored entirely.

For example, I gave three reasons. You picked sex sexuality. Not just sex sexuality, but sexual politics as it applies to your letter salad. So heterosexual feminists don't rate high on your victim scale. And you treated all those carefully defined letters as One Monolithic Block, as if the needs and desires of the transfolks matched those of the gay bears.

You're not a hero because someone hurt your feelings or didn't give you what you thought you deserved. Heroes overcome adversity.

---

Yes, you did attempt to shame me. It's kafkatrapping, specifically invoking model A and model C. It was old when Alinsky wrote about it, under a different name of course. The goal of shaming is to morally prevent me from speaking or writing. It attempts to manipulate guilt of both the target and the spectators.

You're right, I don't know you. Nor should what you have experienced have any influence on my behavior. Unless you're expecting my guilty pity to overcome my beliefs and self-interest.

Even now you are ranking comparative victimhood as if that is what defines people. That is what intersectionality does, isn't it? It's all about the victimhood. Emphasizing the victimhood isn't going to do anything except create a pity party. It's not particularly healthy and it isn't a practical solution.

There are radical feminists who routinely try to shame and shun men all the time. Starting with allegations that America is a "rape culture" and that any PIV sex is rape by it's very nature.

You'll never get social justice because people don't agree on what it means.

You obviously don't know me or you'd know that I carefully think about everything I write. I pride myself on it. You have a problem in that my thoughts don't slavishly follow what you think is important.

I've seen people called heroes over hurt feelings. So have you. I've also seen people cashing in on the ordeals of others. So have you.

You chose to respond to my post. I had done you no harm. All I did was challenge your belief. You don't know who I am or what I've done. You don't know who I've helped or who I've hurt. All you know is that you think I should not be allowed to speak or write my opinion.

---

Pardon, but you're deigning to respond so you can prove a point. You're not doing me any favors and the act comes across a little hollow.

Yes, you did try to shame me. You're not the first or thirteenth or thousandth person to try. You don't get to set the terms of my shame.

Of course I want a better world. What I may not want is a better world on your terms. That's not because of my politics, it's because I'm human.

Yep, I did bring up self-interest because it's a major reason for people's behavior. You're not having this discussion because you're feeling selfless. You've convinced yourself you're doing it for the Greater Good.

Speaking of self-interests, one reason why private alternatives become better, cheaper, and faster is because of competition. A public program doesn't have the incentive to improve so it can keep and get more business. But that is a long subject well beyond the scope of this discussion. I will point out that if something is cheaper and more available, that means that more people can get it if they want it.

I'll also point out that the free market, voluntary transactions between consenting adults, has done more to raise people out of poverty than anything else in history.

Just so you know, I was born on the Navajo reservation and I've spent much of my life near it or the Hopi reservation. I've also lived in Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles, Provo, and Albuquerque among other places. I know about "people of color," but mine go beyond your definition.

And that brings us up to women, doesn't it? I knew my first strong woman from before I was born. Your issue here is not that I don't have empathy, it's that I don't have the empathy that you approve of. Actually the radical feminists I was talking about called themselves third and fourth wave. When I can, I regularly seek out people who disagree with me. No one person and certainly no one group has all the answers.

I didn't pass judgement on sexual assault and harassment. I said that power from victimhood is not a good thing and heroes overcome adversity.

You yourself cited the experiences of others to justify fighting injustice. So yes, you're cashing in and you know people who have done so.

You chose to confront my "hypocrisy" but you haven't proven it. It may not match your opinion, but that is a different issue.

By the way, asserting that I have a "privileged position" is kafkatrapping Model P.

Isn't it interesting how you can tell me that my ideas are flawed but you think I can't tell you the same?

Before you proclaim that US Aid is the answer to all the World's problems, you might ask yourself how much of it actually gets through the many corrupt levels of government? That's the essence of libertarianism you see. It's not that we don't care, we just don't see government as an effective way to deliver what needs to be done.

If I see a victim, I don't want them to stay a victim.

I didn't put the web addy up for you. ❞❞

Tags: shame ∙ shame game ∙ competition ∙ Navajo reservation ∙ Phoenix ∙ Provo ∙ Albuquerque ∙ Tucson ∙ Los Angeles ∙ kafkatrap ∙ victimhood ∙ social justice ∙ self interest ∙ empathy

❝❝It's only shame if I accept the premise.

As I see it, the vice or virtue isn't in the label. It's in how you touch the lives of others. The honor is in giving truth when needed, helping when you can, and leaving the World a little better than how you found it.❞❞
     — NeoWayland, comments from Column: What of the Christians?

Tags: morality ∙ shame ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ label ∙ touch ∙ honor ∙ truth ∙ better ∙ cross posted ∙ maxims ∙ Christians

❝❝What I'd like to point out is that if you keep throwing people you don't agree with into the "Them" pile, you're going to run out of people in the "Us" pile.

And no, I don't include myself in your "Us" pile.

Disagreements happen. People should decide if they want a Grand Crusade where every one agrees (or is afraid to disagree) and nothing gets done. Or maybe where you go for the smaller battles that you can win with allies, instead of waiting for perfection.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ us vs them ∙ people ∙ disagreements ∙ Grand Crusade ∙ perfection

❝❝Mutual consent is the only factor I've found that makes any sense.

I would no more try to control someone's sexual activities than I would try to control their diet or clothing. And for pretty much the same reason. Now I personally may not prefer sheep's brains or orange polka dots on purple plaid, but that gives me no reason to stop the other guy.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ sex ∙ consenting adults ∙ diet ∙ clothing

❝❝I'm not demanding that you give up your faith.

I'm asking why religion should be enshrined in law.

Faith is between you and the Divine, no other person can change that. It's up to you and your choices.

I'm asking for no sacrifice unless you believe that your religion should govern the faith and religion of others.

And if that's the case, I'm asking why.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ faith ∙ religion ∙ enshrined ∙ choice ∙ sacrifice ∙ govern

❝❝The U.S. Constitution doesn't mention the Christian God except in the date.

It's wholly remarkable in that it may well be the first document in history that didn't claim government power derived from the Divine.

Men of faith and men of reason deliberately chose not to make a public declaration of religion even as they acknowledged it's role in individual action.

They knew that faith must be chosen, not compelled.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Constitution ∙ government power ∙ Divine ∙ declaration of religion ∙ individual action ∙ choice ∙ compelled

❝❝I think the mark of an adult is the ability to make the right choice without the threat of punishment. Or perhaps despite it.

We know that's possible. Under the right circumstances, we even revere the people who did that as saints and heroes.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: adult ∙ right choice ∙ punishment ∙ saints ∙ heroes ∙ maxims

❝❝The law is not moral.

That's up to us humans.

(Apologies if I offended any nascent AIs)❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ human ∙ AI

❝❝Pardon, the shooter took advantage of circumstance. It doesn't take much to look around and see where you might kill the most.

I still think we'd be better off if as a society we deliberately didn't publicize the names of these shooters. The notoriety is part of what drives them.

Imagine listing all their victim's names and deliberately forgetting the twisted scum who did it. He sacrificed his humanity to be famous, let him be forgotten.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ shooting ∙ publicity

““Good men must not obey the laws too well.””
     — Ralph Waldo Emerson

Tags: Ralph Waldo Emerson ∙ law and order

❝❝The secret to rabble rousing is not chewing the scenery, it's getting the crowd to chew the scenery.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ rabble rousing ∙ chew the scenery ∙ crowd

❝❝WH, you are way off base with your opinion about Islam having no Constitution protections. Religion is between you and the Divine and no one else.

That being said, *ahem*





It may be a religion, but if it relies on force, any and all opposition is justified. And if someone chooses to walk away, that's their right.

If your religion depends on force, you're doing it wrong.

---

That's not your place to decide. And Story was wrong.

If you start excluding religions from protection, sooner or later someone else is going to exclude yours. No other nation has America's pluralism. It's what threatens all monotheistic Islam. Religious choice is exactly that, choice,

On the other hand, we must insist on an even playing ground. Islam gets no special treatment and no special protections.

I'd be perfectly happy seeing a law that required anyone, regardless of faith, who participated in an honor killing or female genital mutilation to be executed, wrapped in pigskin, boiled with pig dung, and buried under a pig farm. Of course, the pigs might object…

---

Religion is a hot button topic for me, if for no other reason than I have had Christians use theirs against me, and tell me in no uncertain terms that any religion except Christianity should not be allowed. I'm related to some of those people.

Story himself specifically excluded Judaism. Which is interesting considering (among other things) the history of the Newport, Rhode Island Hebrew Congregation.

Here's what both you and Story are completely overlooking. The English Civil War was relatively recent. No proto-American wanted another church telling their church what to do. But that is minor. No, the big thing is that for the very first time (that we know of) in the history of Western Civilization, the defining document did not say that government power derived from the Divine. Except for the date, there is no mention of any god in the Constitution.

The SCT made a mistake with the Mormon ruling. It wouldn't be the first or last time that the Court goofed. Kelo v. New London comes to mind, as does Pace v. Alabama. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriage, and certainly nothing that gives it authority over religion. Under the Tenth (and yes, I know politicos love to ignore the Tenth), that means the no power, period.

Most importantly, there were many things that did not exist in 1791. Radio, automobiles, telegraph, and baseball come to mind. There were many things that were unknown in 1791. No American had seen the Mariana Trench, the Grand Canyon, Mount McKinley, or a coyote.

---

Story was commenting well after the fact, he was not a signatory to either the DOI or Constitution. The fact that he excluded Judaism reflects on him and not the Founders. Jews may have been a minority faith, but they were a well established faith.

Using law to force the rules of your religion was wrong then and it is wrong now. I'm sure you'd object if Muslim prayer calls were enforced in American law, or if Kosher dietary restrictions were part of the legal system. Almost all of the mala prohibita laws have a religious basis. It's no secret that I believe most of the problems in American society are because of too much government and mala prohibita laws. If your religion says no shopping on Sunday or no selling liquor, that's up to you. Using the law to restrict other's choices based on your religion, well, that doesn't say much for your faith.

Start respecting the "commonalities of Christianity" and you're going to fast approach respecting the commonalities of faith. The Ethic of Reciprocity or "Golden Rule" is the keystone of Western Civilization. It is arguably the single most important and universal basis for human advancement and is the basis for all true liberty. But it did not begin with Judaism or Christianity.

Once you eliminate specific mentions of any god, pluralism between sects pretty much leads to pluralism between religions. It may have been an accident. I suspect some of those Deists took a hand, or pen as it were.

I can't stress that enough. That simple idea takes religion and religious choice out of the public sphere and puts it back into individual behavior where it belongs. The teachings of a faith should matter only to the individual, not to the state. I don't want a Congresscritter demanding that I observe the Christian sabbath, any more than you want another Congresscritter demanding that you participate in ritual sex with same sex partners under the next full moon. And no, I don't do that.

Because that sets up the next bit. Radical Islam demands that the state require and prohibit according to the interpretation of the imams. The state becomes an extension of Islam. There is no provision for other faiths except in very subservient ways. The state becomes religion.

The ideas of liberty expressed in the Constitution reflect the universal ideals well beyond "Judeo-Christianity." Parts of it originated with the ancient Greeks and the Roman Republic as you've pointed out. It's a good idea because it works and not because of it's origins.

When the Founders wanted to limit freedom, be it slavery, restricting the vote to male landowners, or originally not enumerating human rights, it was wrong and it failed miserably. There was no way the Founders could foresee what would follow. We celebrate the universality, the protection of liberty from government and those who would abuse government power.

❝We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.❞

---

It's not your place to decide if you require others to sacrifice their freedom for yours. And as a citizen of this country, that's something I will defend fight against.

Constitutional America was not founded as a Christian nation. Nations are not Christian, individuals are. Yes, even the nations with established churches. Just as one very obvious example, nations can't participate in the Christian rite of communion. If a "Christian nation" goes to war, does that mean that Jeshua ben Joseph signed the marching orders?

Story may have been closer chronologically, but that doesn't mean he was right. I've already told you the biggest piece of evidence. The Constitution clearly states that political power comes from the people and not the Divine. This was unheard of, as far as we know it had never happened before.

Protecting rights means protecting people from the whims of the majority. You don't stop having freedom of speech because your city voted for "free speech" zones.

As I explained to WH above, radical Islam means that the state becomes an extension of Islam. Pluralism is pretty much the only thing that can resist that and not become tyranny.

Radical Islam is depending on special privileges and protections not granted to others. They can't do it on a level playing field.

Since the practices I mentioned are exclusive to the more radical versions of Islam, then the rest of us don't have to fear that punishment, do we?

---

Story was still wrong on this. Veritas. No one person, no one group has all the answers. I distrust anyone who says that they do. I refer back to the source document. The Constitution remains one of the clearest pieces of English ever put to paper. There are reasons why the Founders, some of the best educated people of their time, deliberately chose not to include the Christian Deity in the Constitution. It's not because of their faith. It's not because they were not pious. It's because they didn't trust men when they claimed to speak for the Divine.

❝Religion can not be allowed the coercive power of the state and the state can not be allowed the moral justification of faith.❞ That's one of mine.

I'm not advocating paganism and especially not my version. I am saying that your religion does not govern my behavior. Just as mine does not govern yours.

Our nation was founded on principles that transcended Christianity. Some of them predate Christianity. The Founders were wise enough to know that they didn't know everything. The Enlightenment thinkers did not spontaneously create their philosophy, they drew heavily on history. There's no need to label these ideas as Christian or Hottentotten, it's enough that some very wise men found ways to pass along truths that worked. Civilization rises from wisdom after disaster. You're arguing over the labels so "your side" can take credit. Yes, Christian people (as opposed to Christianity) have done some wonderful things. And Christians have done some terrible things with huge costs to humanity. ❝The vice or virtue is not in the label, it's in the individual.❞ Labels borrow merit, although they do get blamed.

I didn't say the EoR was universal, I said it was the keystone of Western Civilization. Our best law and principles rest on the simple idea that we're fair to others because we expect them to be fair to us.

I've said it before, ❝Christianity is not the source of all that is good and righteous in our society.❞ Christians are better and nicer when they aren't the only game around. “One path among many” means Christians usually pay attention to what others say. It means Christians have to defend what they say and do without hiding behind scripture or a "higher truth."

Our law should not be defined in terms of A religion. Certainly not if everyone doesn't share that religion.

We should celebrate the ideas, not the labels.❞❞

Tags: faith ∙ religion ∙ Constitution ∙ force ∙ force of law ∙ Joseph Story ∙ Founders ∙ Christianity ∙ islam ∙ Christians ∙ pluralism ∙ Judaism ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ English Civil War ∙ Western Civilization ∙ Divine ∙ Supreme Court ∙ Kelo v. New London ∙ Pace v. Alabama ∙ marriage ∙ mala prohibita ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ Muslim prayer calls ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ public sphere ∙ individual ∙ behavior ∙ kosher

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Got Booted From a Restaurant, but Florists and Photographers Should Have to Work Gay Weddings?

Tags: news ∙ public accommodations ∙ Sarah Huckabee Sanders ∙ restaurant ∙ florists ∙ photographers ∙ gay marriage

The Right to Discriminate

““The left has created a macabre myth that runs counter to the whole experience of mankind. The left has persuaded the gullible masses of America, including, sadly, most conservatives, that "discrimination" by individuals and businesses is wrong and that it violates the Constitution.

Precisely the opposite is true. All serious cognition and all honest moral judgments involve discrimination. When individuals and businesses are not free to discriminate, then the power to determine what is true and false and good and bad becomes the sole property of the state – or that even more odious creature, that lobotomized Frankenstein monster, "society."

Instead of diverse opinions and actions freely manifest, which are what happens when the state and society are denied the power to force a certain viewpoint down the throats of private citizens and enterprises, what happens is that all debate, all differences, and all individuality are crushed based upon what those who run the state or manipulate society deem sacrosanct.””
     — Bruce Walker

Tags: guest content ∙ clipping ∙ Bruce Walker ∙ discriminate ∙ left ∙ America ∙ Constitution ∙ individual ∙ business ∙ society ∙ diversity

❝❝I am not saying that discrimination because of gender, skin color, creed, or sexuality is right. I AM saying that government seeking to control discrimination is more wrong than the discrimination itself.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ discrimination

Under what circumstances does the state or the people have the moral authority to compel someone to act against their beliefs?

Tags: kosher ∙ pork ∙ BBQ ∙ equality ∙ past wrongs ∙ equal rights ∙ granting privilege ∙ denying rights ∙ moral authority ∙ freedom ∙ Eric July ∙ discriminate ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ goverment

At the same time, the privilege of being a protected class is regularly exploited to excuse behavior and escape responsibility.

Tags: James Meredith ∙ University of Mississippi ∙ 1962 ∙ racism ∙ privilege ∙ excuse ∙ behavior ∙ responsibility ∙ 1964 ∙ Civil Rights Act ∙ equal rights ∙ equal protection ∙ moral wrong ∙ oppression

❝❝If you wish to ban me, it is your site and your choice.

I'm also the one who says "not all men" when I am told in uncertain terms that America is a rape society. And I am the one who says "not all Christians" when I am told that "religious freedom" is a code word for dominionism. And I am the guy who politely and upfront told you and your readers I am a trouble maker, even if it is in the cause of truth and liberty.

Mr. McCain, you and I have had some epic disagreements. We've also had some epic agreements. If you checked, you would see that I seldom disagree with you about the individuals you single out. I just disagree with attacking a label and a class of people.

So, I hope I can stay around. I will not stop saying "not all …" when I think it applies. And now, I have at least one more comment to answer before I am banished.

---

Maybe it's because my experience with feminism didn't start with loud People Who Want To Be Noticed and write books.

Maybe it's because when I had my first direct experience of the Divine, She was just a mite put out that it had taken me so long to notice. I still look for the Divine in every woman I meet. I don't always find it but I always look.

Maybe it's because I knew my first strong woman from before I was born. When her contemporaries were out protesting, she was busy making her part of the World just a little better. All while not claiming the feminist label or accepting anything less than the respect she had earned.

Maybe it's because I learned early on that while words matter, actions matter more and intentions don't.

And maybe I am just too damn stubborn.❞❞

Tags: cross posted ∙ not all ∙ feminist ∙ Divine ∙ People Who Want To Be Noticed ∙ strong woman

❝❝The only reason to follow the rules is if the other does too. If they don't follow the rules, you aren't bound to the rules.

Tit for tat.

You play by civilized rules until the individual doesn't. Then you crush them.

Not the group they belong to, the individual. You refuse to treat the label as the enemy. That prevents them from retreating into the safety of the group identity, and it delegitimizes the moral claims of that group. It also demonstrates that rules work only if everyone follows them. And when someone doesn't follow the rules, then they don't have the protection of the rules.

I might have had some small experience fighting this type of battle.

ETA: Oh, it also makes someone who believes in collective identity for the greater good feel very exposed when they can't retreat. Very exposed.❞❞

Tags: tit for tat ∙ rules ∙ Other ∙ civilization ∙ group identity politics ∙ individual ∙ moral claims ∙ collective identity

“When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are ruled by criminals.”

Tags: memes ∙ guest content ∙ crime ∙ crimminals

❝❝So some religions should get protection and others should not? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that if we start making those distinctions we've just sacrificed religious freedom.

---

There are times I want to discriminate.

There are people I do not want to have anything to do with. Yes, sometimes those people are Christian fundamentalists. But sometimes those people call for imprisoning climate deniers. Sometimes those people call for the redistribution of wealth. Sometimes those people call for the suppression of ideas they are "triggered" by. Sometimes those people want others removed from history because of things the others have been accused of.

So tell me, why should any of those people get their way?

We draw the line for a reason. No, it's not perfect and not everyone will be happy. But it comes down to parity. If I don't think someone has legitimate power to tell me how to think, what to say, or how to act, then I have no legitimate power to tell them how to think, what to say, or how to act. Which means that public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws are so much bunk.

Otherwise we're just raising one victimhood over another. Last week it was women, this week it is transgenders we're "protecting." Can't have equal rights because Black Lives Matter. If your faith offends, you aren't allowed. At that point, at this point, the only "solution" is to control the law so that you can control what is "allowed." Never mind that just sets up a future where you will lose control. You must be free, but the Other is not allowed.

---

Everyone should have freedom to discriminate.

The moment that the law declares this group of people off limits is the moment when you invite the law to be abused.

Look at the bill that sparked the original article. It's a "fix" of another law, which was a fix of a previous law, and so on.

The solution to government is always more government. And the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.

If Christians are wrong to enshrine their beliefs in the law, then anyone else is wrong trying to constrain them with the law.

The only practical solution is making sure the law gives no advantage. "Protecting" one group over others is just going to perpetuate the injustice.

---

As far as the rest, I don't blame labels. There's no vice or virtue in the label. "Christian" includes Roy Moore and MLK. It's not every Christian and we should stop declaring that Christianity is a threat to our chosen way of life. Like it or not, American religious pluralism made American paganism possible.

As far as scapegoats go, well, you (among others) are blaming Christians because they are Christians and not because of what the individual has done.

My point all along this thread is that the law should not benefit or harm any religion. There are some very vocal Christians who want the law to shield Christianity. There are some very vocal people who want the law to contain Christianity. Both groups are wrong.

---

Actually yes.

Starting with a big one. I'll repeat it for you.

If Christians are wrong to enshrine their beliefs in the law, then anyone else is wrong trying to constrain them with the law.

Freedom of religion is exactly that. Neither help nor hinder. You can't fix bad law by making more law. You can only repeal it. Politics is about control. Freedom is about choice.

---

Ah, but that isn't what people like Bill Nye, Lawrence Torcello, Mark Hertsgaard, and Brad Johnson said. They all said that the mere act of climate change denial should be a crime.

Behold the new heresy. You are not allowed to dissent.

And yes, that is every bit as authoritarian as anything any Christian fanatic demanded.❞❞

Tags: Christian ∙ fundamentalist ∙ climate alarmist ∙ imprisoning ∙ redistribute wealth ∙ trigger warnings ∙ history ∙ victimhood ∙ equal rights ∙ Black Lives Matter ∙ faith ∙ offends ∙ transgender ∙ women

❝❝You do realize that if "the Bible is all one piece," you can't pick and choose bits and pieces to quote, don't you? If you eat all your veggies and are especially nice, I won't demand that you start following all those bits in Numbers and Leviticus. We won't talk about the deleted texts now.

How do you suppose those disciples did it? They had to work without a New Testament.

---

So, only the True Believers® are allowed to quote the Bible as they choose because they are special.

I told you before, that says more about your faith than it does my arguments.

It's not enough that I be a good person, I must supplicate myself before the altar of your dogma and beg forgiveness.

Not going to happen, My gods gave me a pass. They also told me what was up.

It's not your god who demands those things. It's certain pesky humans who claim to speak in his name.

---

All this fixation on the Bible is missing the forest for the trees.

Your scripture isn't nearly as important as how you manifest it.

I don't care about your god. I do care about the people around me. I'd rather not fight a religious war, but I can fight to defend me and mine.

The way I see it, it's better if we humans at least talk to each other. Maybe argue and wave fingers in each others faces.

You have your god, I have mine. For all we know they may go out together for beer and wine every seventh year. So let's honor the gods and treat each other decently.❞❞

Tags: Christian ∙ Bible ∙ New Testament ∙ disciples ∙ Numbers ∙ Leviticus ∙ true believers ∙ good people ∙ gods ∙ pesky humans ∙ manifest ∙ scripture ∙ religious war ∙ argue

❝❝One reason why the public school movement gained so much ground in America was in direct response to Catholic schools. Control over what should be taught in public schools is a distraction.

Hardly anyone asks if there should be public schools in the first place.

Mandatory school attendance is backed by the force of law. Much of it has degenerated into who gets to control the conditioning. Which raises some interesting questions. The Daily Caller reports that the Mountain Ridge Middle School in West Virginia requires students to write out the Shahada to practice calligraphy. There are no requirements to write out Christian or Jewish affirmations, and apparently those are not part of the curriculum. Obviously Buddhist and pagan beliefs aren't included either.

Why is this a big deal and a much bigger deal than is being reported? According to Islam, reciting the Shahada makes one Muslim forevermore.

I want to stress that the issue is not Christianity, Islam, or any other faith. The issue is public schools requiring faith lessons. If public schools force religion on the students, then most likely they are teaching other questionable propaganda as well. We notice the religion because as members of minority faiths that is one thing our antenna are tuned for, we overlook the other.

All of this returns to the question why have public and compulsory schools to begin with?❞❞

Tags: public schools ∙ Catholic school ∙ mandatory attendance ∙ Daily Caller ∙ Mountain Ridge Middle School ∙ West Virginia ∙ student ∙ Jewish ∙ Christian ∙ Buddhist ∙ pagan ∙ beliefs ∙ islam ∙ faith ∙ Muslim

❝❝There's at least one blogger who says that Jordan Peterson's advice is banal and obvious. I haven't been able to get through Peterson's book, but I think Greenfield (the blogger) has a point. We need more men acting like men do, especially with kids and VERY ESPECIALLY with boys. I still worry about the American inner cities, where the Federal government in their Official Incompetence decided that families could work without fathers.

---

Scott Greenfield, different blogger. I think I got the article link from Claire Wolfe.

Honestly there are many libertarians and a fair number of conservatives who just don't get why Jordan Peterson is such a big deal. It's like "yeah, we knew that, it's obvious."

---

There's a lot to be said for standing up for what you believe.

---

See, I think it's way too early to compare him to Rush. I also think it's giving Peterson too much credit.

I haven't gotten through his book yet, so maybe there's something there I haven't seen.❞❞

Tags: Jordan Peterson ∙ Scott Greenfield ∙ Rush Limbaugh ∙ Sultan Knish ∙ men ∙ kids ∙ role model ∙ Inner city ∙ Federal government ∙ stand and fight

““What 'multiculturalism' boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture—and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.””
     — Thomas Sowell

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ multiculturalism ∙ Western culture ∙ praise ∙ blame

““There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.””
     — Booker T. Washington

Tags: Booker T. Washington ∙ coloured people ∙ troubles ∙ wrongs ∙ hardships ∙ public ∙ sympathy

You have to look outside your preconceptions and expectations for the things you can't explain.

Tags: Booker T. Washington ∙ racism ∙ problem solving ∙ public

❝❝Okay, seriously though, and this relates to one of my long standing criticisms of women's studies (and any number of gender studies, skin color studies, etc.)

If these various fields of study have any worth at all, they have to acknowledge that they are only part of the picture. Limiting your studies to one subgroup is going to limit your understanding. Especially if you dismiss without question other subgroups. It's the difference between rigorous study and fantasyland. It's why the theoretical has to cross over with the practical. It's not enough to say how things should work, you have to examine how things actually work together. You have to look outside your preconceptions and expectations for the things you can't explain. Otherwise you never leave the echo chamber.

Or, women's studies without human studies is sh*t.❞❞

Tags: women's studies ∙ human studies ∙ theoretical ∙ practical ∙ echo chambers

Tags: memes ∙ gun ∙ jail ∙ cemetary

Tags: Jordan Peterson ∙ inequality ∙ compassion ∙ sharing ∙ freedom ∙ responsibility ∙ memes

Tags: skin color ∙ memes

““Therein lies danger. Peterson may articulate an end goal of balance, but at the moment he's offering order against chaos, yang against yin. The effort is, by definition, reactionary, counter-revolutionary. But once you place yourself squarely on one side of the pendulum, you'll inevitably exaggerate the collective demerits of the other while indulging in-group excesses. Dogma throughout history has had its freedom-killing flaws, he readily admits, but, well, sometimes people just need to be told what to do. This is conscious authoritarianism, and Peterson is volunteering for the job.

Power corrupts, and relationships alter behavior. "This risk of being changed is one of the most frightening prospects most of us can face," Peterson writes at one point. In setting himself up as rule-maker to an adoring flock and flirting openly with the idea that he is being visited with capital-r Revelation, the professor threatens to become unmoored from the winning pragmatism of his clinical practice. Stepping into an exalted role as avenging angel against a feminine chaos can descend quickly into self-parody.””
     — Matt Welch, Jordan Peterson Is Not the Second Coming

Tags: Matt Welch ∙ Jordan Peterson ∙ reactionary ∙ conscious authoritarianism ∙ power corrupts

❝❝For the record, I'm from Arizona. I've also actively worked against John McCain's reelection for decades. I was willing to give him a pass until the Keating Five scandal.

Being a prisoner of war doesn't not give license later in life to screw your constituents. John McCain is selfish, as proven by his last stunt. There's almost no chance of his returning to the Senate. So why hasn't he resigned? Why did he even run in 2016?

---

I don't care if it was talking about George Washington. John McCain is a dishonorable scumbag who is in it only for political advantage. He's cashed in on that POW experience so many times that it ought to have disintegrated by now.

I can't help but wonder if it would have defending John McCain so hard in 2008.

---

No. I mean running for office when one is pretty sure one will be dead before the term ends.

That should have been incredibly obvious by how I worded it.

Obviously your understanding lacks something. If you are not sure what I mean, ask me and I will explain.

One thing I will explain now is that I am not Republican.

ETA: Speaking of incredibly selfish actions, why is anyone discussing John McCain's funeral and his disagreement with Trump before the man has passed?

---

But why is McCain's funeral being discussed in the national press? And don't tell me it's because McCain is a National Figure.

It's not anyone's business except the family until after the man has passed.

Unless McCain thought he could get one more bit of of political posturing at Trump's expense out of it.

Like I said, the man is selfish.

---

I wish I could agree. Unfortunately, the man fancies himself a part-time kingmaker and has done harm to my state.
And. You. Are. Not. Allowed. To. Criticize

---

Sometimes not even then.

You get lectured on how he is an Institution.

Goldwater was an institution, and earned that status. Funny thing is, he didn't have people around him telling other people how important he was.

I met Goldwater when I was in high school. He makes McCain look like a drunk javelina with a missing back leg.❞❞

Tags: John McCain ∙ Barry Goldwater ∙ javelina ∙ Keating Five ∙ funeral ∙ prisoner of war ∙ Senate ∙ 2016 ∙ selfish

Tags: video ∙ Roaming Millennial ∙ Jordan Peterson ∙ viewpoint

“Delusions of Justice”

Tags: Joel Kotkin ∙ clipping ∙ anti-Semitism ∙ Holocaust ∙ France ∙ left-wing ∙ israel ∙ European ∙ BDS ∙ islamist ∙ anti-Zionism ∙ Arab ∙ Muslim ∙ Palestine ∙ Great Britain ∙ Labour Party ∙ Jeremy Corbyn

Bitter lessons 25 years after Waco, Texas, siege

““Fifty-one days before the FBI final assault, scores of federal Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agents launched an attack on the Davidians’ home spurred by allegations that they had converted semi-automatic rifles to full-automatic capacity. The ATF’s lead investigator had previously rejected an offer to peacefully search the Davidians’ home for firearms violations. Four ATF agents and six Davidians were killed in the fracas on February 28, 1993. At least one ATF agent told superiors that the ATF fired first, spurring an immediate end to the official shooting review. But the media trumpeted the ATF storyline that its agents had been ambushed, entitling the feds to be far more aggressive in the following weeks.

What lessons can today’s Americans draw from the FBI showdown on the Texas plains a quarter century ago?””
     — James Bovard

Tags: James Bovard ∙ Waco ∙ Texas ∙ Branch Davidians ∙ ATF ∙ FBI ∙ Janet Reno ∙ massacre

❝❝I just want to point out that American "defense" policy involves military action against nations when Congress hasn't declared war.

---

Even Trump complained when Obama launched military actions without Congressional approval.

You tell me. Should we change the Constitution so the President can attack any other nation on his authority alone? Or should we insist Congress does it's job?

Is this about America, right or wrong?

Or is it about liberty?

---

How about multiple missile attacks?

---

And is it right to launch missiles into other nations? You've said that eight months is sufficient. Is four months? Is four weeks? Is four days?

---

Is it right for other nations to launch missiles into our country?

After all, we have a proven record of meddling in the governments of other nations.

---

So you are saying that the U.S. has the unique power to fire missiles into other countries.

So much for freedom.

---

Obviously there is.

And it's even covered by that top ten list of yours.

---

At the very least, I think using a missile against innocents qualifies as murder.rob

---

Too late.

I do have a solution for the opium fields. But it doesn't involve armies. It would be a lot more effective though.

---

---

Oh?

There are an awful lot of people who got shot at who would disagree with you.

ETA: Not to mention all those overseas military bases.

---

You're arguing over definitions and a matter of degree.

---

Might doesn't make right. I've told you that before.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. Or that you are justified in doing it.

---

Justified?

And if we're wrong, does that make us weak? Or just a bully that no one wants to face?

---

There is a century old story that I tell sometimes. Back during the Russian revolution, President Wilson sent American troops to intervene. The "mission" was murky at best, which led to failed promises and out-and-out lies. Wilson did this without Congressional authorization, we weren't at war with Russia.

Fast forward a couple of decades. Some of the Soviet General Staff had faced American soldiers in the trenches. They knew exactly what American words were worth.

And after WWII, that shaped the Cold War.

All because an American President took it on himself to intervene in a revolution without Congressional authority.

---

Don't get mad at me. It's right there in the Constitution. And if Congress hasn't declared war, then why are American troops fighting?

Considering who has been President, do you really want no checks and balances when it comes to war?

---

So why do we have troops fighting when war has not been declared?

---

Politicos have sacrificed the nation's honor and the lives of American troops for what?

Why do we have troops fighting when war has not been declared?❞❞