Month: September 2022

bookmark_borderHochul’s disturbing comments about “radicalization”

Posted on by Marissa

“I have called upon and am working closely with our Attorney General to identify what’s going on on social media, and those questions are now part of our background checks. So, just like in the old days, you’d talk to someone’s neighbor. Now you can talk to their neighbors online and find out whether or not this person has been spouting philosophies that indicate that they have been radicalized. And that’s how we protect our citizens as well.”

New York Governor Kathy Hochul made these comments at a press conference on August 24. Hochul is referring to her state’s new law which requires applicants for gun licenses to provide their social media usernames so that police can ensure that the content of their posts is acceptable before issuing a license.

These comments are disturbing for several reasons:

First, the use of the word “radicalized” presumes that radical views are something that originates outside of a person, as opposed to from within. It follows from this presumption that radical views are bad and wrong. After all, if certain beliefs can only come to be held due to outside influences, and not due to thoughtful, deliberate reflection, then those beliefs must be irrational and incorrect. But there is nothing inherently bad about radical views, and they are just as likely to be correct as moderate ones. A person can come to hold radical views through careful deliberation, just as a person can come to hold moderate views through such deliberation. In fact, one could argue that radical views are more, not less, likely than moderate ones to be a result of philosophical reasoning and analysis.

Second, it is deeply wrong to base permission to exercise fundamental rights on whether or not a person’s views are considered acceptable. According to Hochul, if an applicant has been “spouting philosophies that indicate that they have been radicalized,” then that is reason to deny their application. In other words, Hochul believes that exercise of Second Amendment rights should be limited to people whose views are deemed sufficiently mainstream and moderate. This is, to put it bluntly, absurd. Holding radical views is absolutely not a valid reason for denial of a gun license. As explained above, whether a person’s views are radical or moderate has nothing to do with whether those views are right or wrong. But beyond that, people’s philosophies, beliefs, and views should have no bearing whatsoever on whether their gun license applications are granted, because people’s philosophies, beliefs, and views are none of the government’s business. Even if an applicant holds beliefs that are completely and utterly wrong, that is no reason to deny them the ability to exercise fundamental rights. 

Third, by conditioning the granting of Second Amendment rights on the acceptability of people’s social media posts, Hochul is treating these rights not as rights at all, but as privileges. Gun ownership is a fundamental right. In criminal law, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, because the consequence of being found guilty is for the person’s freedom to be taken away. Similarly, denying a person permission to own and carry a gun takes away a fundamental freedom. Therefore, decisions with regard to gun ownership must use the presumption of innocence standard as well: as long as the government does not have proof that a particular person is unfit to hold a license, the government has a moral obligation to issue the license. Applying for a gun license should not be treated like applying for a job. This is not a situation in which the government can set any standards that it wants and restrict licenses to only the applicants who meet those standards. The government should not be investigating or evaluating a person’s reputation, statements, philosophies, or beliefs, whether by talking to neighbors or by viewing social media profiles. To view rights as something that should be granted only if a person passes these evaluations is to view rights as privileges. And rights are not privileges; they are rights.

In conclusion, Hochul demonstrates two highly disturbing and false assumptions: First, that when it comes to political and moral philosophies, moderate equals good and radical equals bad. Second, that the ability to exercise gun rights should be conditioned on whether or not a person holds “good” political and moral philosophies. Not only is it authoritarian to restrict freedoms to people who hold the correct views, but it is even more authoritarian to presume that the correctness of someone’s views is a function of how popular and widely held those views are. Yet this is exactly what Hochul is doing. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of minorities against a tyrannical, bullying majority. By openly stating that the expression of unusual views is a legitimate reason to deny a person rights, Hochul is completely defeating the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights and completely disregarding the concept of individual liberty. It is beyond disturbing that any public official would demonstrate such mindless conformity, such moral bankruptcy, and such disrespect for people who think differently than she does, as Hochul has demonstrated through her public statements. It is not okay for the government to limit rights to only those people whose philosophies it has deemed acceptable.

P.S. Although this is not directly relevant to the topic of this blog post, I would be remiss not to mention Hochul’s recent decision to order all Republicans to leave her state. “Just jump on a bus and head down to Florida where you belong,” she said at a campaign rally. “You are not New Yorkers.” Needless to say, these appalling comments are additional evidence of Hochul’s bigotry and intolerance towards people who think differently than she does. So much for progressivism being the philosophy of tolerance, diversity, and inclusion.

bookmark_borderMaren Morris is a scumbag human (continued)

Posted on by Marissa

The mean, nasty, and bullying behavior of country singer Maren Morris continues to reach new lows. As I wrote about earlier, Morris decided to call Brittany Aldean, country singer Jason Aldean’s wife, a “scumbag human” and told her to “sell your clip-ins and zip it, Insurrection Barbie” in response to Brittany’s opinion that parents shouldn’t allow their kids to have sex change surgeries.

Morris’s husband, Ryan Hurd, joined in the nasty and bullying behavior by tweeting: “Scoring quick points by picking on trans kids isn’t something that is brave at all. And I’m proud of Maren for sticking up for them. Badge of honor to have CO engage in completely normal discourse, too. Shut up and sing only applies to those who you disagree with.”

These comments are wrong for several reasons. First of all, Brittany’s comments actually were brave, because they went against the prevailing attitudes of our society. Additionally, Brittany was neither “scoring quick points” nor “picking on” anyone, and Maren was not “sticking up for” anyone. In fact, by using the term “insurrection” as an insult, Maren was picking on not only Brittany, but every person in the world who believes in thinking for oneself and standing up to authority. And finally, “shut up and sing”? Really? I’m not sure what Hurd is talking about here, because the only person telling others to shut up is his wife. It is Maren who literally wrote “sell your clip-ins and zip it” in response to a person voicing an opinion that she disagreed with. Telling someone to “zip it” is synonymous with telling someone to “shut up.” Therefore, if Hurd has a problem with people telling others to shut up, his wife is the person that he should be criticizing, because she is the person who is doing this.

Making this situation even more ridiculous is the fact that Morris recently complained that she does not feel comfortable attending the CMA Awards because Brittany and Jason Aldean are going to be there. This is bizarre and makes no sense whatsoever. Maren is the one who created the situation that she is complaining makes her uncomfortable. She chose to viciously criticize both Brittany and every person in the world who believes in thinking for oneself and standing up to authority. No one forced her to write the disgusting things that she wrote; she went out of her way to write them. And now she, the one who created the entire situation, is complaining that she is uncomfortable. In other words, a bully is complaining about having to be at the same event as her victims.

Maren Morris needs to look in the mirror and think about her role in this situation. She is the aggressor, she is the one who did something wrong, and she is the one who went out of her way to insult and harm other people. By using the concept of resistance to authority as an insult, Maren Morris has acted reprehensibly. She does not hold the moral high ground. In fact, Morris shouldn’t be allowed to attend the CMA Awards at all, given that she decided to attack and bully other members of the country music community. Morgan Wallen was suspended by his record label, ruled ineligible for major awards, and had all major radio stations stop playing his music, all for far less objectionable behavior than Morris’s. Morris deserves to be treated the way that Wallen was, because she has truly acted in a bigoted and intolerant manner.

bookmark_borderMaren Morris is a scumbag human

Posted on by Marissa

Recently, country singer Maren Morris decided to viciously insult Brittany Aldean, the wife of country singer Jason Aldean. Brittany Aldean had made comments on social media criticizing the idea of performing sex change surgeries on children, and in response, Morris wrote the following:

“It’s so easy to, like, not be a scumbag human? Sell your clip-ins and zip it, Insurrection Barbie.”

These comments are truly appalling, and the moral bankruptcy that Morris has demonstrated is breathtaking. It is, indeed, easy to not be a scumbag human. In order to do so, one needs merely to refrain from insulting innocent people who have done nothing wrong. Yet it is Morris, not Aldean, who has utterly failed to accomplish this. For some reason, Morris, completely without provocation, decided to viciously insult not only Brittany Aldean, but every person in the world who thinks independently and holds beliefs that differ from the establishment view.

According to Dictionary.com, the word “insurrection” is defined as “an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.” As you can see from this definition, there is nothing inherently bad about an insurrection. Insurrection means to revolt, rebel, or resist. It means being opposed to authority and the establishment. There is nothing inherently bad about revolting against, rebelling against, or resisting authority or the establishment. In fact, when the established government violates people’s fundamental rights and takes away everything that makes live worth living, as the current administration is doing, then insurrection is very much a good thing, which should be praised and encouraged. Yet Morris chose to use the very idea of resistance to authority as an insult. Apparently, to her, obedience and conformity are synonymous with goodness, while rebellion and nonconformity are synonymous with badness. By using the term “Insurrection Barbie” as an insult, Morris demonstrates not only egregious cruelty and nastiness, but also mindless conformity and authoritarianism. 

Morris’s demand that Aldean “sell your clip-ins and zip it” is similarly appalling. With these words, Morris expresses complete and utter contempt for anyone who thinks differently than her. She orders all people with non-establishment views to just shut up, as if our feelings, thoughts, and perspectives don’t matter. As if it is an obvious fact that her own views are the only ones allowed to be expressed, and that any dissenting opinions must automatically be dismissed as illegitimate. It is impossible to overstate the sheer bigotry and intolerance demonstrated by these comments.

As if the above comments somehow weren’t bad enough, Morris continued to badmouth Aldean in a back and forth exchange with fellow country singer Cassadee Pope on Instagram:

“You know, I’m glad she didn’t become a boy either because we really don’t need another a–hole dude in the world. Sucks when Karens try to hide their homophobia/transphobia behind their ‘protectiveness of the children.’ Weren’t they putting their kids in ‘Biden-is-a-pedo’ shirts on social media? Sounds like a real safe way to protect them from millions of eyes! F— all the way off to Insurrection Barbie and the fellow IB’s trolling this comment section with their hypocritical, hateful a–es.”

So not only has Morris demonstrated an appalling level of nastiness, authoritarianism, and intolerance, but now she has decided to add sexism to the mix as well. It is Morris, not Aldean or any of the “fellow IB’s,” who is truly hypocritical and hateful. It is Morris’s actions that truly suck. And it is Morris who truly needs to f*** all the way off.

In conclusion, Maren Morris has proven herself to be a bully and a bigot with no sense of kindness, tolerance, or decency and no ability to engage in critical thinking. To use some of her own words, she is a scumbag human who needs to zip it and actually respect people who are different than her instead of viciously attacking them. It is beyond classless and beyond unprofessional for a public figure to ridicule, insult, and then gossip back and forth about another public figure, as Morris has done. You simply cannot call someone an “Insurrection Barbie.” It is unacceptable. Not only is this behavior incredibly mean and nasty towards Brittany Aldean, it is also incredibly mean and nasty towards all people who identify as rebels and all people who believe in resisting authority or standing up to the establishment. Morris is a talented singer and songwriter, but unfortunately an absolutely terrible person. I have really enjoyed her music over the years, but I will never be able to listen to it again without thinking of these disgusting comments.

It’s also worth mentioning that the biased media coverage of this situation is almost as despicable as Morris’s comments themselves.

For example, an article from Billboard characterized Aldean’s words as a “transphobic joke” and “transphobic comments.” The article also included a detailed explanation, including quotes by experts, of transgenderism and how it presents for children. Plus, the publication even went so far as to ask Mattel for their comments on the font that Aldean used in an Instagram post, which resembles the font that is used in the logo for Barbie dolls. The article places all this scrutiny on Aldean’s comments and the subject matter thereof, while placing no scrutiny whatsoever on Morris’s comments, other than merely quoting them. The article calls Aldean’s comments “transphobic” as if this is an established fact, without mentioning even the possibility that anything about Morris’s comments might be considered offensive of problematic in any way.

Additionally, an article from The Hill mentions that Fox News host Tucker Carlson “insulted” Morris by calling her a “lunatic country music person.” Similarly to the article described above, this article characterizes Carlson’s comments as an “insult” as if this is an established fact, without even mentioning the possibility that Morris’s comments might be insulting. And in a sad commentary on our society, the article also mentions that Morris decided to create and sell t-shirts with Carlson’s quote in order to raise money for transgender organizations. News flash: “Insurrection Barbie” is a far worse insult than “lunatic.” In fact, Carlson’s words were relatively kind. Morris is far worse than a lunatic; she is a bigot and a bully.

The bottom line is that regardless of what one thinks about transgender rights or the appropriateness of children being able to make their own gender decisions, Morris’s comments are far more offensive, problematic, insulting, harmful, and just plain mean than either Aldean’s or Carlson’s. It is beyond disturbing that the media, along with much of society as a whole, fails to see this obvious truth. For having the audacity to state her opinion that children should not be able to change their gender, Aldean has been insulted, condemned, and mercilessly scrutinized. Plus, her husband Jason Aldean has been dropped by his PR agency. Meanwhile, Morris, who flippantly attacked the very idea of resistance to authority by using the word “insurrection” as an insult, faces no negative consequences whatsoever. She gets to spew vicious and bigoted insults and then continue on her merry way, gloating about how much money she raised and basking in her mindless and hypocritical self-righteousness. This situation, in which people who did nothing wrong are shamed and punished while cruel bullies are rewarded and praised, is emblematic of our society’s warped sense of values.

bookmark_borderWhy student loan forgiveness is unjust

Posted on by Marissa

In the debate about student loan forgiveness, people often point out that many people opposed to loan forgiveness had their college education paid for by their parents, Therefore, the implication is, the opposition to loan forgiveness is illegitimate, because opponents are so “privileged” that they never had to take out loans themselves.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that some parents saved up to pay for their children’s college education demonstrates exactly why student loan forgiveness is unjust.

Student loan forgiveness is unjust not because it is essentially a government-funded bailout of the rich, as many conservatives argue. It is not unjust because it subsidizes colleges, thereby allowing them to continue increasing their prices (although this is probably true). It is not unjust because it forces people who chose blue-collar careers to subsidize people who chose to study less practical subjects such as gender studies (although this is probably true, too). It’s not even unjust because it goes against the principle of personal responsibility by letting people off the hook for the financial ramifications of their decisions (although this is true as well).

Student loan forgiveness is unjust because it changes the rules after people have already made decisions based on the old rules.

Before student loan forgiveness was introduced as a possibility, it was assumed that if someone goes to college, they must pay for it. This is, after all, the way that things work with any product or service. If a person chooses to purchase a product or service, then the person must pay what the product or service costs. For some products and services, including college, there is the option to pay the cost now, as well as the option to pay the cost later, usually with interest added (also known as taking out a loan). Given that they would need to pay the cost at some point regardless, my parents chose to save up money so that they could pay at the beginning, rather than taking out a loan and facing the likelihood of having to pay interest.

But then, thanks to Joe Biden, the rules changed so that people who chose the second option (taking out a loan) are now being told that they don’t have to pay at all! (Technically, they have to pay $10,000 less as opposed to nothing at all, but the same principle applies). This means that my parents, after having already made the decision to pay at the beginning to avoid being charged interest, are now being told that if they had chosen the second option instead, they would be charged a smaller, not a larger, total amount of money. But it is too late for my parents to change their decision, because they have already paid. And there is no way for them to get their money back, because instead of treating people equally, the Biden administration is bestowing the $10,000 discount upon only those people who chose the second payment option (taking out a loan). 

Needless to say, had my parents known that they would receive a $10,000 discount if they had simply not paid and taken out a loan instead, they would have chosen this option. Choosing the first option (paying at the beginning) required my parents to save up money, and they made sacrifices in order to do this, such as working full time and foregoing other purchases. If they could have saved up less money with zero negative financial ramifications, my parents would have been able to take more vacations, make improvements to their home, or buy additional clothes and toys, to give just a few examples. It is patently unjust that parents who chose the vacations or the home improvements (or perhaps who chose not to work at all) instead of saving up money are now going to be rewarded for their choices with a $10,000 discount, while my parents are stuck having paid the full price with no way to get any of their money back. 

In conclusion, there is definitely a need to make college less expensive. But the problem with student loan forgiveness is that it makes college less expensive retroactively, after some people have already paid the full amount. Student loan forgiveness makes it so that one of two payment options comes with a discount… and people are not told this at the time when they must make a decision, but only after the decision has already been made. In other words, student loan forgiveness changes the rules after people have already made decisions based on the existing rules. This is what makes it unjust. When loans are forgiven, a situation is created in which people like my parents, who made sacrifices to save up money, turn out to have saved up that money for nothing. If people with student debt are going to get $10,000 of their debt forgiven, then people who have already paid must receive a $10,000 refund.