bookmark_borderFour years ago today…

Four years ago today, three historical monuments were removed from the North Carolina state capitol grounds in Raleigh. One honored Confederate soldiers, another honored the Women of the Confederacy, and the third honored Henry Lawson Wyatt, the first Confederate soldier from North Carolina to be killed in the war.

“Monuments to white supremacy don’t belong in places of allegiance, and it’s past time that these painful memorials be moved in a legal, safe way,” stated Gov. Roy Cooper.

Even four years later, reading these words makes me sick to my stomach.

These were not monuments to white supremacy; they were monuments to the idea of being different, thinking for oneself, and resisting authority. They were monuments signifying the right of people who are different from the norm to be accepted and included.

These memorials were not painful. Rather the removal of these memorials was painful. The removal of these memorials – along with countless others like them across the country and world – was not only painful but was the most painful thing, by far, that has ever happened to me. I believe that it was the most painful thing that has ever happened to any person.

Because I am a person who is different from the norm, these memorials were necessary in order for me to have a life worth living. And Roy Cooper chose to take them away, on purpose. This action was so completely lacking in empathy that it defies comprehension. And Cooper’s words, in which he characterizes the memorials that he removed as somehow “painful” – while completely failing to acknowledge the excruciating, indescribable, and unbearable pain that he inflicted by removing them – are even more lacking in empathy.

In other words, not only does Cooper falsely condemn statues as “painful” and “white supremacist” when they are nothing of the sort, but he simultaneously fails to acknowledge the pain inflicted by his own actions.

Four years later, I am still grieving. I am still in pain from Roy Cooper’s actions and words, and the dozens upon dozens of similarly horrible actions and words of bigots and bullies across the country and world. To some degree, I always will be.

It is reprehensible for bullies like Roy Cooper to describe the statues that they obliterated from existence as somehow painful, when in reality it is the statues’ removals that are not merely painful, but excruciatingly, indescribably, and unbearably so. The words and actions of these bigots demonstrate a complete lack of empathy, complete intolerance for people who are different from them, and complete disregard for our feelings and thoughts.

Confederate memorials are not painful.

Removal of Confederate memorials is painful.

And not just painful, but the most painful thing that has ever happened, and the most painful thing imaginable.

Period. Full stop. No exceptions.

bookmark_borderThe idiocy of Martin Heinrich

“There’s no law enforcement application for a bump stock. There’s no military application for a bump stock. There’s no self-defense application for a bump stock. These devices are tailor-made for mass shootings. Ban them.” – Sen. Martin Heinrich

It is exasperating and exhausting to keep seeing statements like this. 

The non-aggression principle, the rule that determines objective right and wrong, states that people have the right to do anything they wish, as long as it does not violate the rights of anyone else. This means that, unless owning a bump stock violates the rights of someone else, each person has the right to own a bump stock. 

Does owning a bump stock violate anyone’s rights? No, it does not.

Does owning a bump stock, in and of itself, hurt anyone? No, it does not. 

Therefore, each person has the right to own a bump stock. It really is as simple as that. 

Why does Heinrich care about the fact that bump stocks (allegedly) have no law enforcement, military, or self-defense applications? Why does he think this fact is relevant to the question of whether or not bump stocks should be banned?

It isn’t.

There is no moral rule stating that if something has no application, then it should be banned. There is no requirement that something have an application in order to be allowed to exist. The only requirement is that the thing not violate the rights of others. Bump stocks meet that requirement. Therefore, people have a right to own them. They cannot be banned. 

Contrary to what Martin Heinrich is claiming, people are not required to prove to him that their possessions have an application in order to be allowed to own those possessions. 

Contrary to what Martin Heinrich is claiming, people do not have a right to do only those things that he has deemed useful or necessary. 

People have a right to do anything they wish, as long as it does not violate the rights of anyone else. That includes owning bump stocks. 

bookmark_border“I don’t care how you were raised, unlearn that shit”

So said an idiotic Instagram post that I had the misfortune of encountering.

“Being from another generation or culture isn’t an excuse for prejudice,” the self-righteous person pontificated in the caption.

My question is: why are other people’s opinions, viewpoints, and perspectives considered “shit” in the eyes of this intolerant and self-righteous person?

How ironic that in the very same post that this person condemns prejudice, they call other people’s perspectives “shit.”

Not realizing that considering other people’s perspectives to be “shit” is the epitome of prejudice.

In reality, the person who made this post is the one who needs to unlearn shit, because they are the one expressing intolerance of, and contempt for, other people.

If this person actually cared about combatting prejudice, the best way to start doing so would be by looking in the mirror.

If this person actually cared about combatting prejudice, they would be making an effort to understand and have empathy for others’ perspectives, rather than contemptuously dismissing those perspectives as “shit” that needs to be “unlearned.”

bookmark_borderApril Ajoy is a bully

I came across the below Instagram post which, to put it bluntly, really pisses me off:

I am not sure what Ajoy means by “temper tantrums.” It does not constitute a “temper tantrum” for people to express a view that differs from her own. Evangelicals may be opposed to pride month, and may indeed be expressing that opposition. They may even be expressing their opposition in a vehement and passionate manner. But expressing opposition to something, no matter how vehemently or passionately, does not constitute a “temper tantrum.”

It’s ironic that Ajoy ends her post by writing, “You’re just a bully,” because in reality, it is Ajoy who is the bully. It is the epitome of bullying to characterize beliefs that differ from one’s own as “temper tantrums.”

If Ajoy disagrees with the views of evangelicals regarding pride month, then she needs to actually argue against those views, rather than insulting, ridiculing, and dismissing those views as “temper tantrums.”

A differing perspective is a differing perspective, not a “temper tantrum.”

Making things even worse, the comments on Ajoy’s post anger me as much as the post itself.

“They eat pork and then hate on LGBT people,” writes a stuck-up, contemptuous jerk called downtoearthqueen. “They literally pick and choose which OT laws they believe Jesus fulfilled.”

Well, excuse me for breathing. I absolutely despise this contemptuous use of the word “they,” which is ubiquitous in posts and comments from people on the left-hand side of the political spectrum. This usage indicates that the person views people who are different from them as “less-than,” as things to gossip about and analyze, as opposed to actual people with thoughts and feelings. It is infuriating and enraging.

A commentator named Sandi Joy repeats the same infuriating use of the word “they” when she asks “that they stop using Veterans as a pawn in their bigotry.” And then she ridicules people whose views differ from hers with the infantile “OuR vEtErANs OnLy GeT oNe DaY” and “trooooops.”

What is so incredibly infuriating about Ajoy’s post and the comments on it, is not the views themselves (although these are certainly wrong), but rather the way in which Ajoy and the commentators express their views. Instead of simply expressing their perspectives, they express contempt towards those who feel differently. Instead of making counterarguments, they mock and ridicule. Enough already. This behavior hurtful and mean. And then, making things even worse, these very same people, in the same breath that they express contempt towards people who are different from them, claim that the targets of their contempt are bullies. Not realizing that the truth is the exact opposite. Not realizing that in reality, the bullies are themselves.

In conclusion:

If you characterize other people’s perspectives as “temper tantrums,” you are a bully.

If you treat other people as objects to gossip about and analyze – “they” do this, “they” do that – you are a bully.

If you caricature other people’s opinions with the puerile alternation between capital and lowercase letters and deliberate misspellings of words, you are a bully.

No, April. Evangelicals are not bullies. It is you and your mindless, sycophantic followers who are bullies.

P.S. I have no idea what you are “tired” about, given that your beliefs are shared by the entire political establishment, media establishment, and all major sports teams, companies, and brands. It is posts like yours that make me exasperated, demoralized, mentally exhausted, and, yes, tired. You have nothing to be tired about. I do.

bookmark_borderFour years ago today…

Four years ago today, a sequence of events began, which changed my life completely.

Over the past four years, I’ve experienced unimaginable pain. Pain more excruciating than I thought was even possible for a person to feel. Pain so overwhelming that for the first few months I was reeling, in shock, unable to truly comprehend what was happening or to find adequate words to express how I felt about it. Pain that will take a lifetime to fully process. The events of the past four years have made the world a worse place to a degree so enormous that it is still not fully comprehensible. For a large percentage of this time, I believed that suicide was the best option, given the extent to which the things that make life worth living have been destroyed.

The BLM movement, the “racial reckoning,” the push for racial justice, the statue takedown movement, DEI, political correctness, “woke” ideology…. whatever term one uses, this movement and this ideology did not originate on this date four years ago, but they did rise to power and prominence. What happened four years ago enabled this ideology to become mainstream, to dominate our society, to become the norm. And make no mistake: it is an ideology of authoritarianism and intolerance that has inflicted tremendous harm.

This movement claims to be all about diversity, when in reality it is waging a cruel and brutal campaign to obliterate from the world all forms of diversity that actually matter.

This movement claims to value inclusion, at the same time that it calls for anyone who is different from the norm to be attacked, condemned, and exiled from society.

This movement claims to strive for equity, when in reality it has perpetrated injustices so egregious that they shock the conscience.

This movement claims to fight for the oppressed, yet it itself is the cause of oppression.

This movement claims to help marginalized people, while stomping on the faces of those who are truly marginalized.

This movement insults and shames me for allegedly having “privilege,” when its adherents are the ones who actually hold privilege in our society.

This movement condemns people who have done nothing wrong for allegedly “causing harm,” when its adherents are the ones causing horrific, agonizing, and indescribable pain.

This movement lectures people about empathy, at the same time as it itself demonstrates appalling lack of empathy.

Black Lives Matter, people chanted in the streets, repeated mindlessly in their social media posts, and pontificated in self-righteous press releases. But what about my life? Why does my life not seem to matter in the eyes of society?

People pontificate about “the harm done,” but what about the harm done to me? Why does that not seem to matter in the eyes of society?

It boggles the mind that a movement and ideology could portray itself as, and be perceived as, something so much the opposite of what it actually is.

Because this movement and ideology are profoundly immoral. This movement has inflicted immense harm on the people who deserve it the least. Its ideology is cruel, intolerant, destructive, totalitarian, and completely lacking in empathy. At its core, this movement and ideology are about compliance and conformity, about obliterating all meaningful diversity from the world, about condemning and destroying anyone who dares to be different, to challenge authority, or to diverge from social norms in any way. That is why underdogs and rebels are its targets. This movement is about awarding further benefits to those who are already the best-off in our society, providing further validation to those who need it the least, and inflicting further hurt on those who are already facing the most significant challenges, struggles, and difficulties. This movement’s rise to power has been, by far, the worst thing that has happened in the history of the world. Its adherents do not hold the moral high ground.

But the events of the past four years have also caused me to realize what matters. For too long I had been spending my time and energy on things that are not important, things that I felt I had no choice but to do, because other people expected them of me. But now I have realized that historical figures are the true purpose of life. This does not make the atrocities that have been committed any less atrocious… but I have found a meaning and purpose that I did not have before. The historical figures will live on through me. I will continue to share my perspective, because despite what our society says, it is just as valid and correct as anyone else’s. I will stand up for the historical figures and for myself. I will do whatever I can to honor them and bring them justice.

bookmark_borderUnjustified and baseless belligerence

I recently saw a social media post that said: 

“I hate when people say autism doesn’t have a look. Cause for many of us, we look autistic… Stop trying to erase visibly autistic people.”

The post listed things such as flapping hands, stomping feet, screaming loudly, and vocal stimming as attributes that make a person allegedly look autistic.

There is a problem with this logic. The things listed in the post, although characteristic of autism, don’t have anything to do with a person’s look. The things listed are behaviors and mannerisms, not attributes of a person’s appearance. 

A person’s look refers to attributes such as hair color, hair length, hair texture, eye color, skin color, height, build, etc. A person’s behaviors and mannerisms, such as flapping hands, stomping feet, screaming loudly, and vocal stimming, are not part of their look, per se. 

So yes, it’s absolutely true that there are behaviors and mannerisms associated with autistic people. Autism, by definition, is a collection of traits, and some of these traits have external manifestations. It’s also true that autistic people vary in their ability and willingness to hide (“mask”) their traits by refraining from the associated behaviors and mannerisms.

But this is an entirely separate thing from a person’s “look.” 

Some people act, and behave, autistically. Some people have behaviors and mannerisms that make them obviously autistic. But that’s not the same thing as looking autistic. Autistic people can have any hair color, hair length, hair texture, eye color, skin color, height, or build. Therefore, contrary to what is claimed in the post, autism does not, in fact, have a look

Honestly, posts like this make me angry and exemplify what is wrong with the online autistic community. This post is problematic not just because it is completely false and based on an incorrect understanding of what words mean, but also because of its belligerence and nastiness.

The person who made this post is literally expressing hate towards people who use the word “look” correctly by claiming, correctly, that autism does not have a look. The person who made this post is accusing others of “trying to erase visibly autistic people,” when all we are doing is using words correctly.

Using words correctly, as opposed to incorrectly, does not constitute erasing anyone’s existence, and it does not make a person deserving of hate. The belligerence and nastiness expressed in this post have no justification, because they are aimed at people who have done nothing wrong whatsoever. 

Posts like this are not harmless, not merely illogical and wrong. They inflict pain on innocent people. Even though this post was not addressed to me specifically, it hurts to be subjected to hate and false accusations merely for using words correctly. It hurts that the autistic community is filled with so much unjustified and baseless belligerence, directed towards people who have done nothing to deserve it.

bookmark_borderThoughts on the article, “Avoiding the Last Straw in Cases of Bullying”

I came across this article, titled “Avoiding the ‘Last Straw’ in Cases of Bullying,” by Joni E Johnston Psy.D. in Psychology Today. The article explains how professionals can intervene with victims of bullying to prevent the victims from becoming bullies themselves. 

What struck me about this article was that it places the responsibility for preventing bullying on the victims, rather than on the original bullies. The article outlines the interviewing, questioning, and interventions that bullying victims should be subjected to, while failing to advocate that bullies be subjected to any type of consequences for their behavior. 

“Let’s pretend that a school counselor is concerned that a bullied teen might become violent to get revenge,” the article hypothesizes. “They call in a threat assessment professional to conduct an interview.” The article discusses the types of questions that should be asked during the interview and encourages adults to “intervene early,” to develop “an appropriate intervention plan,” to provide “comprehensive, compassionate care,” and to “guide them toward healthier, nonviolent coping mechanisms.” Johnston also characterizes bullying victims who are angry about their bullying as having an “aggressive behavior problem.”

But bullying victims do not deserve to be grilled by a threat assessment professional. Bullying victims do not need intervention. They do not need “care.” They do not need to be guided towards different coping mechanisms. Being angry that one has been bullied is not a medical problem, it is not a psychological problem, and it is not a behavior problem. It is completely justified. By targeting victims for intervention, Johnston is treating victims as if they are the ones who have done something wrong. But victims haven’t done anything wrong; bullies have. It is the bullies, not their victims, who have an aggressive behavior problem. And it is the bullies, not their victims, who should be subjected to intervention.

The article discusses the personal characteristics of bullying victims that allegedly make them more likely to turn into bullies. For example, victims who “are socially awkward,” and who lack “protective factors, such as abstract thinking abilities, empathy, and self-regulation skills.” But it is wrong of Johnston to scrutinize victims’ personal characteristics at all, because this sends the message that victims are somehow to blame for being bullied, due to a lack of positive traits and skills. In reality, the only person to blame for bullying is the bully. It is the bully, not the victim, who should have their personal characteristics subjected to scrutiny.

The article lists potential events that could trigger a bullying victim to turn into a bully, including:

  • A new, severe bullying incident that feels like the “last straw”
  • Seeing their bullies receive acclaim or reward, which feels profoundly unjust
  • Feeling publicly humiliated by their bullies
  • Perceiving that adults have failed to protect them or take the bullying seriously

It is interesting that by listing the potential triggers above, Johnston is actually admitting that the things that cause a victim to turn into a bully are entirely within the control of the adults in the situation. This further supports the idea that the burden of change shouldn’t be placed on the bullying victim. If adults actually handled bullying correctly – namely by punishing the bully – then no one would have to worry about bullying victims turning into bullies.

Going down the list of triggering incidents: if adults actually punish bullies significantly, including by removing them permanently from the environment if necessary, then bullies will not be in a position to perpetrate any additional bullying incidents or to publicly humiliate their victims. If institutions don’t bestow acclaim or rewards on bullies, then victims won’t have to see their bullies receive acclaim or rewards. And if adults protect victims and take bullying seriously, then victims will not perceive that adults have failed to do these things. 

In other words… instead of providing “care” to victims to help them cope with seeing their bullies receive acclaim and rewards, maybe we should, I don’t know, not give acclaim or rewards to bullies. Maybe the reason why seeing a bully receive acclaim and rewards “feels profoundly unjust” is because it is profoundly unjust. 

In conclusion, the approach recommended in this article makes victims the target of intervention and places the onus of change on them, when in reality, it is the bullies themselves who should be subjected to interventions such as interviews with threat assessment professionals and scrutiny of their personal characteristics. Victims of bullying don’t need care, they don’t need monitoring, and they don’t need to be guided toward better coping mechanisms. They need, and deserve, justice. Instead of subjecting victims to various interventions in an effort to help them cope better with being bullied, our society needs to actually punish the bullies. 

Returning to the title of the article, the way to avoid the “last straw” in cases of bullying is to avoid committing it, and to prevent bullies from doing so. This means for our society to punish bullies severely, to unanimously condemn them, to refrain from giving them awards of any sort, and to prevent them from committing any more bullying incidents by any means necessary, including by removing them entirely from the environment.

One final note: I noticed that throughout the article, the author equates seeking revenge with becoming a bully. A few examples: 

  • “some seek revenge and become bullies themselves”
  • “the victim’s internal world differentiates those who seek revenge from those who don’t”
  • “being frequently bullied ups the odds for a desire for revenge”
  • “it’s the latter type—this angry rumination—that fuels the desire for retaliation”
  • “a bullied teen might become violent to get revenge”

But seeking revenge and becoming a bully are not even remotely the same thing. For a victim to seek revenge on their bully does not make them a bully; it makes them someone who defends themselves and stands up for themselves. Taking revenge on a bully is completely justified, because bullies deserve punishment. For a victim to turn into a bully, on the other hand, involves harming innocent people who have done nothing wrong, which is unjustified. Harming the original bully (justified) and harming innocent people (unjustified) are two completely different things. 

Just as Johnston ignores the distinction between justified and unjustified violence by equating revenge with becoming a bully, she ignores the fact that bullies deserve to be the targets of intervention while victims do not. To lump all violence together goes along with the mentality of placing the burden on the victim to fix the situation. Johnston clearly values preventing violence and making schools safer, which are worthy goals, but she is ignoring something even more important: the entire concept of fairness versus unfairness, justice versus injustice, right versus wrong. 

Perhaps this article isn’t about preventing victims from turning into bullies, after all. Perhaps the entire article is actually about preventing victims from taking revenge on their bullies, something that Johnston inaccurately characterizes as victims turning into bullies. If this is the case, then not only do I object to the idea of placing the burden for change on victims, but I object to the entire goal. For victims to take revenge on their bullies isn’t something that should be prevented at all, because revenge is exactly what bullies deserve.

bookmark_borderConservatives’ inconsistency regarding pro-Palestine riots and BLM riots

I’ve recently seen a few social media posts / comments giving voice to something that’s been on my mind for a while, but which I’ve been having trouble articulating. 

“How come y’all did not support southern students during the riots of 2020? Why is YAF selective?” asked one comment on this Instagram post from YAF (Young America’s Foundation) showing a pro-Israel flag display at Columbia University.

Entrepreneur and activist Ian Smith made the same point more bluntly in a couple of posts. Here is one example

“For years, college campuses have been staging grounds for anti-White protests, demonstrations, and propaganda – even so far as being a part of the curriculum. No problem. One anti-Israel demonstration and the whole government and media mobilize against it and roll in the cops to clean it up. Interesting.”

“Anti-White? Free speech! Anti-Zionism? Hate speech! Conservatives. Explain!”

And here is another: 

“I’m seeing Fox, Newsmax, and most of Conservative social media cheer along watching cops tackle and arrest anti-Israel protestors. Same coping nerds who said, ‘oh they are being forced to do their jobs,’ when they were closing businesses and kneeling for anti-White BLM riots had White people ACTUALLY being attacked in the streets.”

I agree 100% with these sentiments. The inconsistency demonstrated by conservatives (including organizations like YAF, politicians, people on social media, and right-leaning media outlets) is disturbing and angering. 

These conservatives are speaking out so strongly in support of Israel… but they did not do the same for White people, Southern people, and Autistic people whose special interest is history, when we were being brutally attacked, condemned, hurt, harmed, and victimized.

What happened in the spring and summer of 2020 harmed us every bit as badly as the events since October 2023 have harmed Jewish people. And we continue to suffer the effects of what happened in 2020, and will for the entirety of our lives, because the statues and monuments that allow us to feel included, and that we need in order to have lives that are worth living, are still gone and will likely never be put back. 

It hurts to see people rallying to demonstrate their support for, and solidarity with, Israel and Jewish people, given that they did not do anything similar for us when we needed it. And given that we still need it, because our statues, monuments, flags, place names, and holidays are still either under attack (at best) or gone entirely. 

Why didn’t YAF (or anyone, for that matter) create a Confederate flag display to demonstrate support for White people, Southern people, and Autistic people, when we were under relentless attack? (We are still under relentless attack, so it’s not too late.)

In our society, anti-Israel protests are responded to forcefully by police and unequivocally condemned, while anti-White, anti-Southern, and anti-Autistic riots are considered completely fine and allowed to happen with impunity (at best) or praised as moral and honorable (at worst).

Even among conservatives, the condemnation of the current protests, and the demonstrations of solidarity with their victims, are noticeably stronger than they were in 2020, when people like me were targeted by violent protests. 

This inconsistency hurts. 

My message to conservative organizations, politicians, individuals, and media is as follows: 

I have been hurt. I have been harmed. I have been victimized. I am still hurting, and still suffering, every bit as much as Jewish people are hurting and suffering due to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. I deserve your support and solidarity just as much as Jewish people do.  

bookmark_borderThe return of the bills whose sole purpose is to hurt people as badly as possible…

I could not believe my eyes when I saw this. The Virginia bills whose sole purpose is to hurt people as badly as possible are back. Governor Glenn Youngkin has seven days in which to either veto or sign them.

I heard about these bills through the social media posts of people / organizations who are fighting against them, and have not read any coverage of them in the news media, but the mere thought of what the news articles might be saying about them makes me sick to my stomach. The Instagram post linked above says, “the left is pushing hard for [Youngkin] to sign these bills.” The idea that anyone would push for these bills is absolutely sickening, and it makes me sick to my stomach to imagine the arguments that proponents might be making in favor of them.

I cannot wrap my head around why someone would think that either of these bills is a good idea and should be enacted into law, particularly after the indescribably horrible atrocities that have been committed unendingly and relentlessly over the past four years. It boggles my mind to think that anyone would favor inflicting additional suffering on people who have already been tortured by the infliction of unbearable, indescribable, relentless pain. “Left” isn’t even the correct term for someone who supports these bills, in my opinion. The desire to make the world as bad a place as possible, and to inflict the maximum possible amount of pain on other people, can’t accurately be categorized as a political ideology at all. A person who considers this to be a worthy goal, which must be the case for anyone who supports bills HB 812 and SB 517, is so filled with brutality, cruelty, meanness, and nastiness, and so completely devoid of morality and devoid of a soul, that such a person doesn’t even deserve to be categorized as a person at all.

“I’m so sick of this,” wrote one commenter on the Instagram post.

“Unbelievable,” wrote another. “I spent 4 years in Virginia and I loved it there. It’s been a shame to see legislation like this, the desecration/removal of monuments, etc..”

Amen. My thoughts are the same as these comments, but multiplied by 100.

I am so incredibly sick of things like bills HB 812 and SB 517. So, so incredibly sick of it. More sick of it than I ever thought it was possible for a human being to be sick of anything. My soul has been beaten down by the brutal, cruel, mean-spirited nastiness that is bills HB 812 and SB 517. Brutal, cruel, mean-spirited nastiness that just keeps occurring again and again, relentlessly. Where the people who hold 100% of the power just keep hurting the people who hold no power, as badly as they possibly can. For no other reason than inflicting pain and suffering. As if inflicting pain and suffering on people is somehow noble, or honorable, or morally good. I am so incredibly sick of it that there are no words to convey the extent of my exhaustion. It is soul-crushing.

To say that legislation like this, and desecration/removal of monuments, are a shame is an understatement. Legislation like this, and desecration/removal of monuments, completely defeat the purpose of Virginia. They completely defeat the purpose of the US. They completely defeat the purpose of life, because they erase from the world the very things that make life worth living.

The actions that have been committed, and that continue to be committed, are absolutely soul-crushing. People who support bills HB 812 and SB 517, and/or any policies even remotely like them, have inflicted indescribable agony. My soul is sick, aching, and in pain.

This is the email that I sent to Governor Youngkin about these bills:

Dear Governor Youngkin:
I am writing to express my opposition to bills HB 812 and SB 517. In my opinion, these bills are mean-spirited, destructive, hurtful, and without any redeeming value. I am on the autism spectrum, and my special interest is history. I really admire Confederate generals such as Robert E. Lee, and Confederate history is extremely important to me. I have been severely hurt by the attacks on history and statues that have taken place over the past few years, and these bills are just a continuation of the same attacks. It is extremely upsetting to me that these bills have a chance of becoming law. I feel that these bills have no purpose other than hurting people who love Confederate history, such as myself. I have already suffered tremendous pain due to the relentless and cruel attacks on Confederate history and statues, and inflicting additional pain on people like me, as bills HB 812 and SB 517 would do, is the absolute last thing anyone needs.
Therefore, I respectfully urge you to please, please veto these mean-spirited and hurtful bills.
Sincerely,
Marissa

bookmark_border“F*** your dead” – the atrocity done to the Lion of Atlanta

It’s been several years since the atrocity that was done to the Lion of Atlanta, but I saw this Instagram post about it recently, and I felt the need to share my thoughts.

“F*** your dead,” wrote the excuses for human beings who committed this atrocity. And of course, “BLM.” 

The excuses for human beings also crossed out the word “Confederate” from the phrase “unknown Confederate dead” on the monument. 

Translation:

F*** anyone who differs from us in any way. F*** anyone who differs from the norm, from the majority.

Only our lives matter. No one else’s. No one’s feelings, perspective, or viewpoint matters, other than ours. 

Anyone who differs from us in any way needs to be erased from existence, as if they never lived at all.

Only bland, mundane people who conform to social norms and mindlessly comply with authority should be allowed to exist. 

The only people who deserve to be honored, memorialized, or respected are those who look and think like us.

Those are the attitudes of the excuses for human beings who committed the atrocity towards the Lion of Atlanta. 

And those attitudes are the antithesis of diversity, the antithesis of inclusion, the antithesis of tolerance. 

I say: 

F*** you, excuses for human beings who wrote these things.

F*** your contempt, hatred, and intolerance for anyone who differs from you in any way. 

F*** your bigotry.

F*** your authoritarianism.

You demonstrate that supporters of the BLM movement are the real bigots, the real racists. 

Our society should have unanimously and unequivocally condemned this movement the instant its slogan was found graffitied, alongside profane insults, on the Lion of Atlanta. 

Yet despicably, our society did the opposite. 

Society’s embrace of the movement responsible for this and countless similar atrocities is an injustice worse than words are able to convey; it is the worst injustice imaginable.