Category: philosophy

bookmark_border“Elon Musk is trying to access your personal bank and tax data”

Posted on by Marissa

Sen. Adam Schiff recently stated: 

“Elon Musk is trying to access your personal bank and tax data. The world’s richest man should not and cannot be able to snoop around your personal finances. Period. End of story.”

This response by a user called Chaotic Good is spot on:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Glory Glory (@oldgloryglory)

Personally, I find it rich that Schiff would complain about Musk being able to “snoop around” people’s personal data when he and his party demanded that people be required to provide personal medical information in order to be allowed to work, attend school, eat at restaurants, work out at gyms, or attend public events. This demonstrates a great deal of hypocrisy, lack of logic, and moral inconsistency, in my opinion. Why does Schiff care about people’s privacy now, when Musk is allegedly violating it, after he and his party spent years actively violating people’s medical privacy and personally insulting anyone who objected to these policies as selfish, irresponsible, ignorant, ridiculous, and stupid?

Also, it’s a bit puzzling that Schiff feels the needs to point out that Musk is the world’s richest man. Musk’s economic status doesn’t have anything to do with which data, if any, he should be able to access. Therefore, there really isn’t any reason to mention this. It’s almost as if Shiff thinks that being the world’s richest man is inherently something negative, and somehow makes Musk inherently bad and untrustworthy.

What Schiff should be saying is: Governments, companies, and other institutions should not and cannot be able to require people to undergo medical procedures. Period. End of story.

That is what is important. That is what is worth being outraged and upset about. Not Musk’s access to data.

bookmark_borderRestricting guns at polling places is not “good news”

Posted on by Marissa

Somewhat old news by now, but I agree wholeheartedly with this post from the Firearms Policy Coalition:

As FPC correctly points out, violating people’s rights is not “good news.”

Additionally, what is striking about Everytown’s post is that they equate the existence of guns with “armed intimidation.” They do realize that a person can possess a gun without using it to intimidate others, right? It’s almost as if it doesn’t occur to them that a person could just…exist. With a gun. Not using it to intimidate anyone. This shouldn’t be a revolutionary concept, but apparently, it is. Having a gun on your person is not the same thing as “armed intimidation.” Possessing a gun, in itself, does not intimidate anyone.

Furthermore, Everytown’s statement that “armed intimidation has no place in our democracy” is another example of the pompous, self-righteous, stuck-up, and condescending attitude that I discussed in an earlier post. What the heck is “our democracy,” anyway? Democracy is a form of government in which decisions are made based on what the majority of people prefer. There’s nothing positive about this. It allows the majority to violate the rights of unpopular minorities. Yet so many people speak of “our democracy” as if it’s something of supreme importance, something sacrosanct, something whose goodness is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be explained. To me, this is just another way of saying, only people like us matter. Only people who act like us, think like us, and live like us. No one else’s feelings, perspectives, viewpoints, or experiences matter. It’s “our” democracy, and everyone else can go to hell. We don’t like guns; therefore no one should be allowed to have them. Who cares about the fact that possessing a gun has no impact on anyone but yourself, and therefore isn’t anyone else’s business? As usual, the basic moral truth that people have a right to do anything that they want to, as long as it doesn’t harm others, is thrown out the window. To the worshippers of “our democracy,” only the majority’s perspective matters. If they don’t like something, then it should be banned. The rights of unpopular minorities – as well as the entire concept of people having rights, for that matter – are completely disregarded.

Enough about your democracy. Individual rights are what actually matter. And banning guns at polling places violates them. This is the opposite of “good news.”

bookmark_border“Soooo STUPID”

Posted on by Marissa

Defiant L’s captured this horrible tweet back from the times when the federal government was attempting to force all people to undergo a medical procedure:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Defiant L’s (@defiant.ls)

Even now, four years later, this tweet is infuriating.

Yes, protesting against a policy that forces people to undergo a medical procedure against their will is “soooo STUPID.” God forbid that people, you know, stand up for their fundamental rights. God forbid that people fight back against policies that are morally wrong. Can’t have that. Obviously, when something violates people’s rights and is blatantly immoral, people should just accept it and not make any attempt to fight back against it in any way. Obviously, forcing people to undergo a medical procedure against their will is perfectly fine.

Not.

The fact that somebody could think this way is incomprehensible to me. It is admirable and courageous that airline workers put their jobs on the line to stand up for their right to bodily autonomy. To look at this situation and call the airline workers’ actions “soooo STUPID” is despicable, idiotic, and insulting. Any person who thinks this way is truly stupid.

bookmark_borderOur rights don’t come from government

Posted on by Marissa

Another post similar to yesterday’s, but with a message that is always worth repeating:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

Banning something that does not, in itself, hurt anyone is morally wrong. And this is true regardless of who is in office, regardless of how people voted, and regardless of the thoroughness of the process.

bookmark_borderYour natural rights do not depend on majorities

Posted on by Marissa

The Firearms Policy Coalition reminds us of an important truth that is always worth pointing out:

The fact that an assault weapons ban is backed by a slim majority of U.S. adults is irrelevant. Banning something that does not, in itself, hurt anyone is morally wrong regardless of how many people support it. As FPC points out, rights do not depend on majorities. And as an astute commenter on their post points out, “I don’t recall seeing a ‘popular opinion exception’ clause anywhere in the Constitution.”

bookmark_borderIncome tax is slavery

Posted on by Marissa

An excellent post:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Cam Higby (@camhigby)

This post perfectly explains why income taxes are morally wrong, while tariffs are not. Income tax by its very nature involves taking money directly from people. Tariffs do not. It really is that simple.

Additionally, the point about income tax being slavery is both true and relevant to the statue genocide. The perpetrators of this genocide demand the obliteration of any historical figure who participated in slavery in any way, without realizing that many policies that they themselves actively support also constitute slavery. Slavery does not just mean black people in the South working on plantations. It means forced labor in all its forms, and if you condemn the former without condemning all other forms of slavery just as strongly, that makes you both racist and a hypocrite.

A commentor on the post astutely points out: “When your earnings are taxed, effectively confiscating the fruits of four months’ worth of your hard work, it equates to depriving you of four months of your life. Taxation, under any reasonable definition, can be likened to forced labor.”

bookmark_borderPhotos of the aftermath of the statue genocide

Posted on by Marissa

Judy Smith recently posted some photos of a drive down Monument Avenue in Richmond, Virginia. These photos are heartbreaking. The one thought that echoes in my mind when looking at images like these is: How could people possibly think that this is a good thing?

Where there once were beautiful statues, there is now nothingness. Where there once was a celebration of history, there is now meaninglessness, purposelessness, and emptiness. Where people who are different from the norm were once accepted, now we are shamed, condemned, attacked, viciously hurt, excluded. Where life was once worth living, now it is not.

“We hate you,” the city of Richmond says to me, as well as to all people who are different.

The city of Richmond, like so many other cities across the United States, was completely ruined. Deliberately. On purpose. People actually thought that this was a good thing to do. How? How could they think this? It is completely incomprehensible to me.

These images depict the sickening result of the statue genocide. Statues of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jeb Stuart, and Matthew Fontaine Maury are supposed to stand on this street, where now there are only vacant expanses of dirt. I will feel rage and grief at what happened to these statues for the rest of my life. I will never fully heal, as long as these hideous wounds remain in the landscape of our country. What happened to these statues was wrong. These statues, these historical figures, and the fact that what happened to them was wrong, must never be forgotten.

bookmark_borderYou know what’s “pure hell,” Tim Walz?

Posted on by Marissa

According to Fox News, Minnesota governor and vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz described he and Kamala Harris’s loss as “pure hell” and said that Democrats are “fatigued.”

You know what’s pure hell? Watching the man that you love be lynched. Seeing the noose tightening around his neck, and the mob of angry bigots pulling on the rope. Hearing the sickening thud as his massive bronze body falls to the ground. Watching his murderers celebrate their “accomplishment.” Watching them stand on the pedestal where the man you love stood just seconds ago, their hands raised in sickening triumph. Watching them pose for pictures with their knees on his neck as he lies, pitifully, face down on the pavement.

Seeing police officers lined up, off to the side, watching this horrifying scene unfold, doing nothing to intervene because they were instructed not to. Hearing this atrocity – a demonstration of pure hatred for you because you are different from the majority – characterized as “understandable” and an act of “civil disobedience.” Hearing that the main perpetrator was released with no punishment, and that the other perpetrators weren’t arrested or charged to begin with.

Having to somehow continue existing, year after year, in a society that considers the above scenario to be completely acceptable. A society that doesn’t care about your pain, that doesn’t care about your feelings, that doesn’t care about your viewpoint, that doesn’t care about your perspective.

This is pure hell, Tim Walz. This is what I’ve experienced. And you caused it.