bookmark_border“They should have done it during the day so we could see your tears”

Why, exactly, is it considered a good thing to take actions that inflict pain on other people?

Why is this considered something positive?

Why, when a person takes actions that harm another person, do you believe that this reflects badly on the person being harmed, rather than the person doing the harming?

Please explain, John Maxwell.

Because as far as I can tell, this is the exact opposite of how morality works.

Last time I checked, taking an action that causes another person to cry – in other words to suffer, to be harmed, to be in pain – is something bad, not something good. And therefore I’m confused as to why someone would advocate in favor of that.

Please explain, John, how you came to hold moral beliefs that are the exact opposite of how morality actually works.

“And like the ones we still have to hear about over a decade after Obama was your president twice as long as the confederate states lasted.”

Same questions. Why is it considered good to inflict pain on other people? Why is this considered positive? Please explain this, Ronald Wendel.

Additionally, what does the length of time something lasted have to do with whether it was good or bad? What exactly is the logical connection there? Please explain.

Yes, Obama was president for eight years. The Confederate States of America lasted for four years.

What does this have to do with whether Obama’s presidency was good or bad?

What does this have to do with whether the Confederacy was good or bad?

What does this have to with whether or not the Confederates were justified in seceding from the United States and forming their own country?

That’s right. It doesn’t.

Maybe next time. refrain from making statements that have absolutely no basis in logic and make absolutely no sense. Just a thought.

bookmark_borderExcellent post from the Confederate Cleaner

I follow and strongly recommend the Facebook page titled, The Confederate Cleaner. And I love this recent post in which he explains the motivation behind his work:

“As I started to discover just what the Southern soldier was truly made of, I wanted a way to tell their story. This page was created to do just that. In a way, I felt I was giving a voice to the Confederate soldier in a time where they were being constantly slandered.”

This is very similar to my motivation for my artwork and statues. I want a way to tell the stories of the historical figures, and to give them a voice, in a society that has decided that their stories should be erased and their voices silenced. The historical figures cannot stand up for themselves, so I feel a responsibility to stand up for them.

“Sometimes it’s easy to think we’re fighting a losing battle,” he writes. “That’s how they want us to feel! But, charge forward we must! Keep honoring those who fought so bravely in protecting the land we love so dear, Dixie!”

Amen to that.

Read the rest here.

bookmark_borderNews anchor Kate Merrill sues CBS for anti-white discrimination

Kate Merrill, a news anchor for WBZ News (the Boston affiliate of CBS), has filed a federal lawsuit against her former employer for anti-white discrimination.

According to Fox News, back in 2021, parent company CBS called WBZ “too white” (a blatantly racist statement), “the least diverse station for on air talent” (why is a station’s proportion of non-white people being equated with diversity?), and “the whitest of all their stations” (as if this is somehow a bad thing).

As part of the resulting push for “DEI” (which in reality is anything but), WBZ hired a black meteorologist named Jason Mikell and laid off a white meteorologist named Zack Green. (This sounds like a blatant instance of racial discrimination.)

Subsequently, Mikell made an inappropriate sexual comment about Merrill on air. (This sounds like pretty egregious misconduct.) Merrill attempted to remain on civil terms with Mikell despite this. One day, she texted him to correct his mispronunciation of the town Concord (sounds reasonable), and he responded by loudly, aggressively, and unprofessionally yelling at her in the studio (sounds highly unreasonable).

Other colleagues reported the sexual comment to HR, and Merrill herself reported the aggressive yelling. But no one did anything to discipline Mikell for his conduct. Instead, Merrill was informed that she was the subject of an investigation. Mikell had filed a complaint against her for having “treated coworkers differently because of their race.” Her crime? Allegedly being critical of Mikell and – gasp! – failing to ask him about his weekends. As punishment for these horrendous deeds (sarcasm by me, in case that wasn’t obvious), Merrill was demoted from weekday morning co-anchor, to weekend nights. Advised by colleagues and union leaders that the demotion was career-ending, she opted to resign, but was barred, due to a non-competition provision, from working in the field for over one year.

The lawsuit states: “Merrill vehemently challenged the validity of Defendant Mikell’s allegations and denied (and denies) any of her actions, inactions, or comments were as described or motivated by overt racism or unconscious bias. Based on the falsity and/or and misleading nature of Defendant Mikell’s allegations, Defendant Mikell acted with malice and/or improper motive in lodging a complaint against Ms. Merrill.”

I agree with this lawsuit 100%. WBZ’s decision to hire Mikell and lay off Green was discriminatory. Mikell’s actions towards Merrill were mean, inappropriate, and wrong, and his decision to file a complaint against her was completely baseless. The station’s decision to discipline Merrill, and not to discipline Mikell, was absolutely egregious. In short, both the station collectively and Mikell individually, acted unjustly, wrongly, and immorally. They should be ashamed of themselves, and they deserve the harshest possible punishment.

Mikell’s actions, and WBZ’s response of declining to punish him and instead punishing his victim, exemplify the trend in our society in which black people are able to do anything, no matter how wrong, bad, or harmful to others, with impunity. Because if a white person criticizes or complains about a black person in any way, no matter how justified and no matter how completely unrelated to the person’s race, we are accused of being racist, and we are considered to be the problem. Thereby creating a society in which white people are allowed to be criticized, and black people aren’t. If that isn’t an example of systemic racism, then I don’t know what is. It’s despicable that so many people go on and on about the existence of “white privilege” when the opposite is actually the case.

I remember Kate Merrill from the days when I was actually able to watch the local news without being subjected to PTSD attacks thanks to DEI supporters’ violent destruction of everything that makes my life worth living (but I digress). I hadn’t known about her departure from the station or the reasons behind it until I came across this Fox News article. I hope that she succeeds in her lawsuit.

bookmark_borderPossible good news on Christopher Columbus statue in Columbus, Ohio

The statue of Christopher Columbus in the city that bears his name, Columbus, Ohio, could potentially be coming back to public view. 

The organization “Reimagining Columbus” (I don’t really consider this an appropriate name for such an organization, but that will have to be explained fully in another blog post if I ever have the time and energy to write one) has unveiled its plan for a new park that includes the statue. The park, unfortunately, will not be centered on the statue. And it will include informational text about Columbus, which unfortunately has a high likelihood of being disparaging, somewhat defeating the purpose of returning the statue to public display. Visitors will be able to reach the statue after walking along a path lined with art and inscriptions and, interestingly, will be able to view the statue either by looking up at him from the ground, or from a hill where they could look him in the eyes. 

All in all, this does not sound like an ideal situation, but it is better than nothing.

Source: We The Italians

bookmark_borderGreat post from Confederate Coffee Company…

…about Lee High School in Midland, Texas

Here is an excerpt:

We weren’t part of the vote — but we’re proud of the result. Respect. Heritage. Honor. That’s what this is about. Across the South, our story matters. Every community deserves its voice, its roots, and its rightful names. Let’s stop erasing. Start remembering.”

(emphasis added)

Amen to that. The story of the Confederacy matters. The story of Robert E. Lee matters. And so does mine. Minority viewpoints, perspectives, and stories matter, not just those of the majority. Not just those that line up with whatever happens to be popular. Just like the Confederates, I am unpopular, I am a rebel, and I am different from the norm. This is why the Confederates are so important to me. Their stories matter, and mine does as well. The Confederates, and myself, deserve to be honored just as much as anyone else does.

Read the rest of their post here.

bookmark_border“Don’t give up? That’s what you did at Appomattox.”

Um, yes.

The Confederates gave up at Appomattox.

So?

The Confederates gave up at Appomattox after four years of being outnumbered, outgunned, and out-supplied. After four years of fighting an enemy that had a larger population, more money, and a more industrialized economy than they did.

Yes, the Confederates gave up at Appomattox.

What is the moral significance of that fact?

What does that have to do with whether the Confederacy was good or bad?

How, exactly, does that reflect badly on the Confederates, as this commenter seems to be implying it does?

The correct answers to these three questions:

There is none.

Nothing.

It doesn’t.

bookmark_border“Twenty-five million Americans…”

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

Um, yes. And that is bad, how?

If force or violence is justified to advance an important political objective, that means that killing a person is OK if doing so is necessary to advance the political objective. I don’t get why it’s considered bad or surprising that someone who believes that violence is necessary would actually be willing to use it. And as the Firearms Policy Coalition points out, there absolutely are situations in which violence is justified to advance political objectives, with the Revolutionary War being just one example.

FPC’s caption in the post is so important that I am reproducing it below:

“We believe that natural rights are not granted by governments, a byproduct of majority consensus or majoritarian process, or mere privileges conferred by any government, group, or creation of man.”

(emphasis added)

bookmark_border“Proud of what?”

Proud of thinking for myself, rather than mindlessly following norms.

Proud of standing up for what is right, rather than what is popular.

Proud of recognizing that these are not the same thing.

Proud of resisting authority.

Proud of having demonstrated tremendous courage in the face of overwhelming odds.

Proud of having moral beliefs that are objectively correct.

That’s what I’m proud of, to give just a few examples.

The real question is, what do you have to be proud of?

Because the last time I checked, being a mindless bully and bigot didn’t really meet the criteria.

bookmark_border“Midland Legacy did last longer than the confederacy…”

So? And this is relevant, how?

Also, take this similar comment: “The Crunchwrap supreme lasted longer than the confederacy so we should name it after that”

And what exactly is the connection between how long something lasted, and how deserving it is of having a school named after it?

How exactly are these things related?

What exactly is the relationship between how long something lasted, and its goodness or badness?

If a child dies, say of cancer, or an accident, does that mean that the child wasn’t important, and doesn’t deserve to be memorialized, merely because their life didn’t last very long?

Or, if someone is raped, or has their limbs blown off in a terrorist attack, does that mean that these experiences weren’t important, and didn’t actually harm the person significantly, merely because they didn’t last very long?

I’m confused about the connection between how long something lasted, and it’s goodness or badness.

I’m confused about why people think that there is one.

Because logically, it doesn’t seem like there should be.