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“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.

bookmark_border“honoring white Supremacist Traitors is now diversity, ROFLMAO”

Yes, actual diversity is now diversity.

How hilarious!

Diversity that only includes people whom everyone likes, diversity that only encompasses non-controversial attributes, diversity that only includes people who conform to norms… is not diversity in any meaningful sense. It is not diversity at all. 

God forbid that anyone who is different from you be allowed to exist in the world, Donald Nichols. Can’t have that. 

P.S. You might want to learn proper punctuation. It would make you look like slightly less of an idiot.

bookmark_border“Traitors”

In other words… people who are different.

People who don’t fit in.

People who think for themselves rather than mindlessly following norms.

People who rebel, who resist, who stand up to authority.

Yes, we are all of these things.

We don’t value conformity, and we don’t value compliance.

We value what is right, and we recognize that this is not the same as what is popular.

Why do you use this word as if it’s a bad thing?

By using this word as an insult, you reveal yourself to be a bully and a bigot with no mind, no soul, and no capacity for independent thought.

And that is actually a bad thing.

bookmark_border“The ‘woke lemmings’ won the Civil War”

… and that’s relevant, how?

How exactly does which side won and which side lost, have to do with which side was good and which side was bad? How exactly does winning and losing have to do with which side was right and which side was wrong?

It doesn’t.

Winning and losing have nothing to do with good and bad.

Winning and losing have nothing to do with right and wrong.

Winning and losing are determined by things like strength, power, strategy, and numbers. They have nothing to do with the moral goodness or badness of the people involved, or of the causes for which they fought.

Yes, the Union side won the Civil War.

The Union side used their larger population, their more industrialized economy, and their greater wealth to harm, hurt, and oppress the Confederates, and to violate their rights.

How, exactly, does this reflect badly on the Confederates?

When people harm, hurt, and oppress others and violate their rights, that reflects badly on the people doing the harming, hurting, oppressing, and violating. It does not reflect badly on the victims.

This is such a basic and obvious moral truth that it’s hard to believe it even needs to be stated. But if the comment sections of social media posts are any indication, it most definitely does, time and time again.

Yes, the woke lemmings won the Civil War.

So?

That doesn’t make them not woke lemmings. That doesn’t give them, or you, the moral high ground. And pointing that out, as if it somehow has moral significance, just makes you a mindless bully.

bookmark_borderChronic venous insufficiency is not funny

File this under the category of, “things that shouldn’t need to be stated.”

I stumbled across this post in my Facebook feed.

Nothing remarkable about the post itself. Like many people, I’ve heard the news that President Trump has been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, a common condition for older people which means that he experiences swelling in his legs and will likely start wearing compression socks.

What is remarkable, and not in a good way, is what I saw in the lower left corner of the post: the fact that the most common reaction that readers had to this post was the “laughing face.”

Out of the 1,600 people who reacted to this post, a plurality reacted with laughter.

Hundreds of people think that President Trump being diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency is funny.

What the heck is wrong with these people???

Why on earth would someone think that a person being diagnosed with a medical condition is funny?

What kind of person laughs at another person’s medical diagnosis?

I simply do not understand this reaction. I don’t get it. At all. It is baffling to me.

I can’t imagine ever finding a public figure’s medical diagnosis to be humorous, no matter how much I disliked the public figure.

It’s difficult to find a better example of the meanness, the nastiness, the cruelty of the progressive left than this.

In our society, we hear again and again about the “cruelty” of the Trump administration, the “intolerance” of right-wing ideology, the idea that conservatives “lack empathy” for those different from themselves. Yet it is the progressive left that chooses to respond with humor, with mocking, with ridicule, with laughter when a person that they dislike is diagnosed with a medical condition.

This behavior is actually cruel.

This behavior is actually intolerant.

This behavior is what actually demonstrates a lack of empathy.

The progressive left has absolutely no claim to the moral high ground when they choose to react with laughter to the president’s medical diagnosis. Every time they accuse the right of cruelty, intolerance, or a lack of empathy, they demonstrate their own complete and utter hypocrisy.

Perhaps someone should visit the profile pages of each of the people who left a “laughing face” reaction to this WMUR news story, and scan their profile pages for any mention of a health struggle or medical diagnosis, affecting either the person themselves, a family member, or a friend. Then, that someone should leave a “laughing face” reaction on each of these posts. I wonder how these people would enjoy being the recipient of their own behavior. I wonder if they would still consider health problems to be funny, if they or their family members or friends were the ones being made fun of.

To state the obvious truth that I alluded to at the beginning of this blog post, the fact that President Trump has been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency is not funny. If it weren’t for the moral bankruptcy of the progressive left, such a thing wouldn’t need to be stated. But unfortunately, it does.

bookmark_border“Heroes of what, exactly?”

“Heroes of what, exactly?”

This is a comment that I saw on a post with a cool graphic depicting Confederate soldiers of various ranks and wearing various uniforms, with the caption “our heroes.”

This comment is yet another example of the bigotry, intolerance, and idiocy of “woke” ideology.

“Heroes of what, exactly?”

My first thought in response to this comment is… what does that even mean? I wasn’t aware that a person needed to be a hero of something in order to be a hero. I wasn’t aware that the term “heroes” required such a specifier in order to make sense. What exactly does it mean to be a hero of something?

It’s probably pointless of me to even ask these questions, because this comment isn’t really an attempt to make a logical and reasoned argument, but rather a mindless act of aggression for the sake of aggression. It’s an attempt to attack, to dominate, to question for the sake of questioning. Seemingly, this commenter thinks that he’s making an incisive and salient point, that being a mean bully somehow demonstrates his cleverness, that failing to answer the question to his satisfaction (or at all) somehow makes Confederate supporters look foolish and stupid. He seems to be saying “gotcha!”… as if our inability to specify what Confederate soldiers are heroes of, somehow proves wrong our assertion that they are heroes.

In reality, it’s the commenter himself who looks foolish and stupid.

In reality, all that is demonstrated by this thoughtless and incoherent comment is the fact that the commenter is a mean and aggressive bully.

We consider Confederate soldiers to be our heroes, and we have every right to do so. People don’t need to be heroes of anything in order to be heroes.

An additional observation that demonstrates the bigotry, intolerance, and idiocy of “woke” ideology: I left a comment on the original post expressing agreement and stating, “their lives mattered.” Several people chose to react to my comment with the “laughing face” emoji. The fact that every person’s life matters should be so obvious that it shouldn’t even need to be stated. Yet several people chose to express the opinion, not only that the lives of others don’t matter, but that the very idea that the lives of others might matter, is laughable. In other words, to these people, the possibility that people who are different from them might actually have value, is considered ridiculous.

What kind of person laughs at the idea that other people’s lives mattered? What kind of person ridicules the possibility that those who are different from them might actually have value? An intolerant bully and bigot with no mind and no soul.

In conclusion, Confederate soldiers are heroes, and their lives mattered. Period. Full stop. End of story.

bookmark_borderHaving a different opinion does not make someone “delusional” or “out of touch with reality”

“Just came to the comments section to see whether MAGA is as delusional and out of touch with reality as ever before. I was not disappointed.”

Yes, because for people to have different viewpoints, ideas, and perspectives than you, is totally the same thing as being delusional and out of touch with reality. 

Obviously, your own personal viewpoint is the sole barometer of objective truth.

Thanks for this bigoted, intolerant, and mindless comment.

Well done!

Not.