Category: media

bookmark_borderDespicable New York Times “fact check” re: RFK

Posted on by Marissa

The New York Times wrote the following ridiculous paragraph in an article about Robert F. Kennedy: 

“Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many artificial ingredients, questioning why the Canadian version has fewer than the U.S. version. But he was wrong. The ingredient list is roughly the same, although Canada’s has natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used ‘for freshness,’ according to the ingredient label.”

The Times claims that the ingredient list is roughly the same, while in the very same sentence listing four substantial differences in the ingredient list. 

It’s like Mary Lincoln telling someone that she mostly enjoyed watching “Our American Cousin,” except for the minor detail of her husband being shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth. 

How can the Times not see that it is directly contradicting itself in a single sentence? 

“But he was wrong,” the Times pompously boasts. Not seeing the fact that they are proving Kennedy right with their very next sentence, in which they list the artificial ingredients in Froot Loops.

As Brad Cohn points out: “As you see, the ingredient list is just completely identical, except the US product contains formaldehyde, cyanide, and nearly undetectable levels of saxitoxin.” 

The New York Times is pathetic, both for their contemptuous tone and for their complete lack of logic.

Source: DC Draino / Being Libertarian

bookmark_borderAn example of the bias of Yahoo News

Posted on by Marissa

While checking my email the other day, I came across this infuriating set of headlines on Yahoo:

I can almost hear the awe and admiration in the author’s voice when reading the headline about Harris’s “historic speech” as the “first Black woman and first person of South Asian descent to accept a major party’s presidential nomination.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s reason for doubting election results is sneeringly dismissed as “baseless.” 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: News articles and headlines are required to be neutral. This is the entire purpose of the news media. News articles, and their headlines, must contain information only, without opinions or value judgments.

Despite this, Yahoo, as well as other media outlets, has a pattern of consistently portraying one party’s politicians in glowing terms while criticizing, condemning, shaming, attacking, and calling attention to every possible negative thing about, political figures of the other party. Because the things that have been going on in this country over the past few years are so triggering to me, I almost never read news articles. Yahoo’s disdain for people whose political views differ from those of the establishment is so blatant that its existence is obvious merely from looking at headlines. Given that the entire purpose of the news media is to present facts only, and to abstain entirely from voicing opinions, this situation is completely unacceptable.

To characterize something as “baseless” is an insult, not a piece of information. Therefore, it is unacceptable for a news headline to contain this word. (Unless it is part of a quote by a person whom the article is quoting… but that is not the case here. “Baseless” is the headline writer’s own word.)

It is mentally exhausting to be made to feel shamed, insulted, and attacked day in and day out for having political beliefs that are different from the majority. Shame on Yahoo for their repeated use of bigoted, biased, pejorative, and sneering headlines.

bookmark_border“Anti-Trump Burnout: The Resistance Says It’s Exhausted”

Posted on by Marissa

I recently came across an article titled, “Anti-Trump Burnout: The Resistance Says It’s Exhausted.”

This headline confuses me, because people who are anti-Trump are the opposite of the resistance. They are the authority. They are the establishment. They are the people who run the institutions of our society, who hold the power. They are, as hippies would say, the “man.”

This headline is a contradiction in terms, because in reality, Trump and his supporters are the resistance. 

That’s why people were arrested en masse for protesting at the Capitol building in support of him on January 6, 2021.

That’s why one of those protesters was killed by a police officer, and why society almost unanimously reacted to her death by viciously insulting, condemning, ridiculing, and shaming her as opposed to the police officer who killed her. 

That’s why Trump was banned from all of the major social media networks.

That’s why he has been charged in four different criminal cases.

That’s why states have removed his name from their ballots.

That’s why the term “MAGA Republicans” – an abbreviation for Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” – is used as an insult. 

That’s why it is considered socially unacceptable to say that you support Trump, or that you voted for him. 

That’s why, when hundreds of people personally attacked me on social media for expressing my support for statues, one such person noted the fact that I had once retweeted a pro-Trump post and summarily classified me as “human garbage.”

Nothing could be more twisted, or more wrong, than to call the people who control society and use their power to harm and oppress others, the resistance.

It’s also completely lacking in empathy that the so-called “resistance” – which in reality is the anti-resistance – would characterize itself as “exhausted.” There is nothing exhausting about holding all of the power in society and using it to harm and oppress other people. Trump and his supporters are the ones being harmed and oppressed. We are the ones with no power. We, and not the people harming us, have reason to be exhausted. The anti-resistance has nothing to complain about: if harming and oppressing others is so exhausting to you, then stop doing it.

bookmark_borderJimmy Kimmel, not Aaron Rodgers, is the real a**hole

Posted on by Marissa

A little while ago, Jimmy Kimmel posted the following tweet: 

In reality, Jimmy Kimmel, and not Aaron Rodgers, is the a**hole in this situation. 

It doesn’t matter whether Kimmel had any contact with Jeffrey Epstein, or whether his name appears on any Epstein-related list. Regardless of whether or not he is guilty of what Rodgers accused him of, Kimmel is wrong to issue such a pompous, stuck-up, and self-righteous statement. 

“Soft-brained wackos”? Really? 

“Nonsense” that Rodgers “can’t seem to distinguish from reality”? Really?

“Reckless words” that “put my family in danger?” Really?

Apparently, in Kimmel’s eyes, anyone who disagrees with him is “soft-brained” and a “wacko.” 

Apparently, in Kimmel’s eyes, any idea with which he disagrees is “nonsense.”

And apparently, in Kimmel’s eyes, any person with ideas that differ from his own is unable to distinguish “nonsense” from “reality.”

The fact that Kimmel would speak and write this way about people with whom he disagrees is a far more important issue than whether or not Kimmel had anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein. Regardless of whether or not Rodgers’s allegations are factually correct, it’s unacceptable for anyone to speak or write this way about people with whom they disagree. Doing so is the very essence of bigotry and intolerance. Doing so demonstrates a person to be a pompous, stuck-up, and self-righteous bully.

Honestly, it is completely lacking in empathy for Kimmel to be so angry and upset at Rodgers’s accusations, regardless of whether they are true or false. Did Kimmel speak out against government policies requiring people to undergo medical procedures against their will? Did he stand up for the historical figures who have been murdered en masse over the past three and a half years? Did he stand up for the autistic people who have had to witness public spaces across the country being redesigned in order to ensure that we cannot feel included?

No?

Then, quite frankly, he has no right to be upset about anything. 

For these are the things that are actually upsetting. These are the things that should cause Kimmel to be filled with pompous, self-righteous anger, not comments by Aaron Rodgers.

This is why Jimmy Kimmel, and not Aaron Rodgers, is a true a**hole.

bookmark_borderRebutting biased Yahoo News article about Jason Aldean

Posted on by Marissa

I recently came across an article from Yahoo News about Jason Aldean’s song, “Try That In a Small Town.” Both the article and the people quoted in it display the intolerant, authoritarian bias that is infuriatingly common in the media today, which I will explain and rebut below:

The article quotes Aldean’s response to his critics: “In the past 24 hours I have been accused of releasing a pro-lynching song (a song that has been out since May) and was subject to the comparison that I (direct quote) was not too pleased with the nationwide BLM protests.”

Well, yes. It’s kind of understandable that a person wouldn’t be too pleased with the nationwide BLM protests, given that these protests are racist and have the goal of destroying everything that makes life worth living. I’m not sure why being displeased with the BLM protests would be considered a bad thing.

“The country star — who witnessed the worst gun massacre in U.S. history at the 2017 Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas — had already caught flak for the song’s seemingly pro-gun lyrics… In a tweet, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America founder Shannon Watts pointed out the hypocrisy of an artist ‘who was onstage during the mass shooting… that killed 60 people and wounded over 400 more’ recording a song ‘about how he and his friends will shoot you if you try to take their guns.'”

Why would “pro-gun” lyrics be something that a person would catch flak for? I’m not sure why being in favor of people’s fundamental rights being respected would be considered a bad thing.

Also, I don’t understand Shannon Watts’ allegation of hypocrisy (let alone Yahoo‘s decision to take this false and nonsensical allegation as a fact by using the words “pointed out”). Aldean witnessed and survived a crime. And he does not believe that every person in the country ought to be punished for the crime. I am not sure why this is considered hypocritical. I am not sure why Watts, and Yahoo, believe that logical consistency requires the belief that whenever a crime occurs, the correct response is to punish all people by violating their rights.

“In another viral tweet, police reform activist Brittany Packnett Cunningham pointed out: ‘Uvalde? Small town. VA Tech? Small college town. Newtown? Small New England town. Parkland? Small town that had just been voted Florida’s *safest* town. Most mass shootings occur in *small towns*. Your listeners are dying.'”

I am not sure what the locations of mass shootings have to do with anything. It is morally unacceptable to respond to mass shootings by violating people’s rights, regardless of the locations in which the shootings take place. As for the claim that Aldean’s listeners are dying… well, yes. Of course they are. Every person dies eventually, regardless of whether or not they listen to Aldean’s music. Perhaps Cunningham is trying to point out that Aldean’s listeners have died in mass shootings. I don’t see the point of that observation, either. Mass shootings, just like any other type of tragedy, happen from time to time. Given this, it makes sense that some victims would be Aldean listeners and some wouldn’t, because one would expect the victims of tragedies to represent more or less a cross-section of the population. Again, I don’t really get the point of this observation. It is morally unacceptable to respond to mass shootings by violating people’s rights, regardless of whether or not the victims are Aldean’s listeners.

The article quotes Mississippi Free Press news editor Ashton Pittman, who tweeted: “Jason Aldean shot this at the site where a white lynch mob strung Henry Choate up at the Maury County Courthouse in Columbia, Tenn., after dragging his body through the streets with a car in 1927.”

And this is relevant how? Also, I think Pittman meant to say, “a lynch mob,” as opposed to “a white lynch mob.” There is no reason to mention the race of the members of the mob, other than to be blatantly racist, and presumably the editor of a newspaper does not intend to be blatantly racist.

The article also quotes reporter Matthew Chapman, who said that the song “absolutely captures everything about the American Right, from the paranoid threats of violence, to the irrational fetishization of communities where everyone acts and thinks the same, to the fact that the singer in fact grew up in a city.”

First of all, Chapman’s use of the term “American Right” is somewhat bigoted, because it paints an entire nationality in a negative and pejorative light. Why wouldn’t he just say, “the Right”? Also, I am not sure what aspects of Aldean’s song Chapman considers to be “paranoid.” I am also unsure why liking something would be considered “fetishization” or “irrational.” I’d be interested in hearing Chapman explain what factors make an affinity for something “irrational” and constituting “fetishization,” as opposed to normal and rational. Also, I’m confused as to why Chapman characterizes the types of communities Aldean likes as “communities where everyone acts and thinks the same.” The types of communities that Aldean sings about are actually communities where everyone acts and thinks differently from the norm. Those who subscribe to the ideology of political correctness, as Chapman and Aldean’s critics do, actually form a community where everyone acts and thinks the same. That is why those who subscribe to this ideology have been so eager for the removal of statues honoring the Confederacy and Christopher Columbus – because those statues symbolize the idea of being different and thinking differently from the majority. By having the courage to challenge this ideology of mindless conformity, Aldean and the communities about which he sings are doing the exact opposite of everyone acting and thinking the same. And of course, Chapman chooses to condemn Aldean and the “American Right” for… acting and thinking differently than he does. He characterizes as “irrational fetishization” the fact that someone likes something different from what he likes. In reality, it is Chapman, and not Aldean, who irrationally fetishizes communities where everyone acts and thinks the same. Chapman has the whole “acting and thinking the same” thing completely backward and is a complete hypocrite. Chapman’s contemptuous, self-righteous, and idiotic comment captures everything about the ideology of mindless conformity that is commonly referred to as the left. 

The Yahoo article also quotes Rev. Jacqui Lewis, who said: “There is no non-racialized way to write a song about lynching.” This statement is false. The concept of lynching has nothing to do with race. People of any race can lynch someone of any race. There is also the fact that Aldean’s song is not about lynching, so I am not sure why Lewis chose to mention lynching at all.

And the article quotes someone named Leigh Love, who wrote: “It’s like he forgot about the January 6 insurrection.” This statement really confuses me. I am not sure what the protest that took place on January 6 has to do with Aldean’s song, or what it is about Aldean’s song that indicates that he forgot about that protest. I’m also not sure why Love considers resistance to an unjust and tyrannical authority to be bad. Love almost seems to be implying that because people resisted authority, everything associated with those people and their ideology is bad and should never be praised or spoken of positively ever again. If this is, indeed, what Love is implying, then her statement is one of the most appalling instances of bigotry, intolerance, cruelty, moral bankruptcy, and aggressive, mindless conformity that I have ever seen in my life. If this is, indeed, what Love is implying, then she is an absolutely terrible person whose despicable views should not be amplified or platformed in any way.

“However, a representative for the video’s production company, TackleBox, told Yahoo Entertainment that ‘Try That in a Small Town’ was shot at a ‘popular filming location outside of Nashville’ and claimed several other projects have been filmed there over the years.”

The use of the word “claimed” implies that the author of the article doubts the veracity of the representative’s statement. The author should have used a more neutral word such as “said.”

“Responding to the growing backlash Tuesday, Aldean continued to deny that his song and video have any racist or pro-gun connotations.”

Similarly, the use of the word “deny” demonstrates bias because it implies that the author doubts what Aldean is saying. Also, I’m not sure if Aldean is denying that his song has pro-gun connotations or merely stating that there is nothing bad about having such connotations. He certainly would be 100% correct if he was doing the latter because, as I explained above, there is nothing bad about being in favor of people’s fundamental rights being respected.

“He and his wife, influencer Brittany Aldean, have posted anti-Joe Biden, anti-vaccine and pro-Trump statements online and they caught flak for spending New Year’s Eve 2021 weekend with Donald Trump.”

I am not sure why someone would catch flak for spending a New Year’s Eve weekend with Donald Trump. Trump is simply a person, with good and bad attributes, just like any other person. Would Yahoo characterize someone as having “caught flak” if that person had spent a weekend with Joe Biden? Also, I am not sure whether the Aldeans have actually posted anti-vaccine statements online, or whether they have merely posted statements expressing opposition to vaccine mandates. Being opposed to forcing people to do something against their will is not the same as being opposed to the thing itself. I am not sure why this is such a difficult concept for Yahoo to grasp.

“In September 2022, the singer parted ways with his publicity company of 17 years, GreenRoom, after Brittany drew the ire of liberal country stars like Maren Morris and Cassadee Pope with what many considered to be transphobic remarks.”

It’s interesting that the article mentions Brittany Aldean’s remarks and what some people consider to be objectionable about them, while completely omitting any mention of Morris’s remarks in response, which were vastly more intolerant, insulting, hurtful, problematic, offensive, and deserving of criticism.

bookmark_borderJack White’s disgusting statement on Trump

Posted on by Marissa

Earlier this month, musician Jack White posted the following statement on social media: 

Anybody who “normalizes” or treats this disgusting fascist, racist, con man, disgusting piece of shit Trump with any level of respect is ALSO disgusting in my book. That’s you Joe Rogan, you Mel Gibson, you Mark Wahlberg, you Guy Fieri. This is a statement from me, not a discussion/debate. -Jack White III

Well, despite White’s claim that “this is… not a discussion/debate,” he has no right to tell people that they are not allowed to respond to his statement. He has no right to tell people that they are not allowed to discuss and debate what he said. So I am going to do just that.

My response to White’s statement is, to put it bluntly, fuck you. 

The vicious, cruel, nasty, and aggressively intolerant tone of this statement is appalling.

I am beyond sick and tired of people again and again acting in a such vicious, cruel, and nasty manner towards those who are different from themselves. 

I am beyond sick and tired of people so self-righteously and so aggressively expressing their intolerance and their mindless conformity, as if they think these qualities are somehow positive. 

I am even more sick and tired of people who, apparently unaware of the irony, while doing the above-mentioned things, call those who are different from themselves, “fascists.”

Donald Trump is not disgusting. He is not a fascist. He is not racist. He is not a con man. He is not a piece of shit. 

In reality, Jack White is a piece of shit for saying these things.

In reality, Jack White is disgusting for saying these things.

In reality, Jack White is a fascist for characterizing a person with different beliefs than his own in this way. 

Statements like White’s are what truly should not be normalized in our society. 

With this statement, White is going out of his way to spew viciousness, cruelty, and nastiness, going out of his way to demonstrate intolerance and mindless conformity, as if he thinks these qualities are something to be proud of, something to boast about. 

Being vicious, cruel, nasty, mindless, and completely intolerant of people who are different from you is nothing to be proud of. It is nothing to boast about. 

You, Jack White, are a disgusting piece of shit in my book.

You are a disgusting piece of shit for choosing to issue such a vicious, cruel, nasty, and intolerant statement. 

You are a disgusting piece of shit for thinking that viciousness, cruelty, nastiness, intolerance, and mindless conformity give you some sort of claim to the moral high ground. In reality, they do the exact opposite. 

And you are not only a disgusting piece of shit, but also a hypocrite, for actively and aggressively demonstrating such complete intolerance for others while simultaneously calling those others “fascists.”

Jack White, not Donald Trump, is the real fascist. 

Joe Rogan, Mel Gibson, Mark Wahlberg, and Guy Fieri deserve to be praised for having the courage to think differently from the majority and to take an unpopular stand.

Jack White deserves to be condemned for his viciousness, cruelty, nastiness, and intolerance, because these are the most immoral and most disgusting qualities that a person could possibly have.

Jack White deserves to be condemned for his aggressive and mean-spirited advocacy for mindless conformity, because this is the most immoral and most disgusting type of advocacy that a person could possibly engage in.

Or as former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard put it:

Jack White recently expressed his disdain for anyone who “normalizes” Trump. In the meantime, what he wants us to do is normalize those in power abusing that power to go after political opponents, using the strong arm of the law as their goon squad.

bookmark_border“Basic white girls”

Posted on by Marissa

“Basic white girls.”

A little while ago, I watched a YouTube video in which the speaker casually used this term. It was a video about the two newest American Girl dolls, Nicki and Isabel, who are twins from the 1990s. The YouTuber stated that she is not a fan of the twins overall, but praised the fact that American Girl decided to make the sisters half Jewish, so that at least they are not just “basic white girls.”

The more I thought about it, the more this flippant, offhand comment bothered me. 

Why are white girls considered “basic”? Why are white people considered more “basic” than black people or Asian people or Hispanic people or indigenous people? What exactly is it about light skin that makes a person “basic,” while people with darker skin tones are not classified that way? 

To label white girls as “basic” is racist. 

People come in a wide range of skin colors, from dark to light. All skin colors are equal. People with light skin are not “basic,” any more than people with dark skin are.

People come with a wide range of eye colors, hair colors, hair textures, and hair lengths. Nicki happens to have long, brown hair and blue eyes, while Isabel has medium length blond hair and green eyes. These attributes do not make them “basic,” any more than a doll with dark skin, dark brown eyes, and black hair would be “basic.”

There is also the attitude that the only characteristic saving Nicki and Isabel from being completely “basic” is their Jewish ancestry. This, of course, implies that Christian people are “basic.” Therefore, this comment reeks not only of racism but of religious prejudice as well. 

People – both fictional and real – have all different personality traits, backgrounds, life experiences, abilities/disabilities, hobbies, interests, preferences, and views. People have different stories, different struggles, different obstacles to overcome. Yet our society has seemingly decided that some attributes make a person “interesting” and deserving of having their story told, while other attributes make a person boring and “basic.”

Honestly, comments like these hurt. I am tired of seeing and hearing comments like this being thrown around so flippantly and casually, as if they are nothing. Comments like this are not nothing. They are racist. The fact that it is so common for these types of comments to be casually tossed about, and so rare to see them called out as the bigotry that they are, demonstrates the systemic, anti-white racism that pervades our society.

Nicki and Isabel are white girls. But they are not “basic,” and neither am I. 

bookmark_borderThe most ridiculous article ever published?

Posted on by Marissa

This might just be the most ridiculous article ever published in the history of the world: 

Source: Being Libertarian

First of all, the headline should read, “People who didn’t get a COVID vaccine are at higher risk of traffic accidents, according to a new study.”

To skip something means to pass on attending or participating in something. It presumes that the event in question will be happening regardless of whether or not the person goes (e.g. if a person skipped a party, that means that the party happened, but that particular person didn’t go). Getting a vaccine is not something that happens regardless of whether or not you go. If you choose not to get a vaccine, then the act of you getting the vaccine will not happen. Therefore, it makes no sense to speak of “skipping” a vaccine. Why not refer to it simply as not getting the vaccine? (Declining, opting against, and abstaining are also perfectly good options.)

Second, it makes no sense to speak of “their” covid vaccine. It’s not as if there is a specific vaccine dose set aside for each person, which goes unused if the assigned person chooses not to partake. If a person chooses not to get a covid vaccine, then there is no such thing as “their” covid vaccine.

Taken together, this language, like the language of so many “news” articles on the topic of covid, presumes that people ought to get the covid vaccine. The headline’s word choice implies that people are somehow being derelict and careless, and failing to do something that they are supposed to, by choosing not to get the vaccine. And this is false, because getting and not getting the covid vaccine are equally valid options. 

And then there is the issue of why someone would choose to conduct a study on such a topic as the correlation between a person’s vaccine status and car accident risk. There is no possible motivation for undertaking such a study, other than to shame, stigmatize, and humiliate people who choose not to get the covid vaccine. This is such a cruel, mean-spirited, and nasty thing to do, that it is incomprehensible to me why anyone would wish to do it. The fact that researchers would choose to conduct this study, and that an institution would choose to fund it, is appalling.

Even more preposterous, if such a thing is possible, is the claim that the alleged increased risk of traffic accidents “could justify changes to driver insurance policies.” For auto insurance companies to charge higher rates, or impose additional requirements, on people who opt against a particular medical procedure is morally abhorrent for obvious reasons. The right to decline medical intervention is the most fundamental right that there is. Therefore, people cannot be punished in any way for declining a medical procedure. (By the way, the biased language of the article and the biased nature of the study already impermissibly punish people who decline the vaccine, so the last thing that should be done is to add to this injustice via auto insurance discrimination.) A person’s medical decisions are absolutely none of an auto insurance company’s business, and auto insurance companies have no right to know anything about a person’s medical decisions, let alone treat people differently based on those decisions. 

The authors of this study ought to be ashamed of themselves for even suggesting such an immoral idea, and the author of the article should be ashamed for giving them a platform. Criticizing and humiliating people who have done nothing wrong is truly shameful, not declining the covid vaccine.

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.