Marissa's writings about individual rights, justice, neurodiversity, and being different from the norm
This truly hits the nail on the head:
View this post on Instagram
(source here)
And some of the comments on the post are spot on as well:
“The thing about Kimmel is that he has never been funny.”
“The funniest thing about Kimmel was the irony of him losing his job for something he celebrated when it happened to others.”
“People need to realize Kimmel would applaud you losing your job for anything you say or think that doesn’t match left wing politics.”
Check out this Substack post by Kaeley Triller Harms, which eloquently explains the despicable reactions to Charlie Kirk’s murder and the hypocrisy that they demonstrate.
Here is an excerpt:
For years, the Left has tightened the noose around free speech, punishing dissenters, reporting neighbors, threatening livelihoods, even lives, for the crime of calling a man a man. And now? Now you want to posture as defenders of open discourse. Really? Where were you?
And here’s the bitter irony: even as conservatives grieve, even as we bury our dead, your late-night court jesters use our wounds as punchlines. Jimmy Kimmel’s ‘primary job’ is to entertain, to unite audiences in laughter. Instead, he exploited a brutal murder to insult half the country. Tell me: what other job in America allows you to spit in your customers’ faces while they’re mourning and still keep your paycheck?
But now – when it’s your speech at stake – you cry ‘free speech’? Do you know what happened to a conservative for speaking freely last week? He was executed while addressing an audience at a university. Until you confront that reality, don’t expect sympathy.
I’ll tell you what’s happening. You built this system. You enforced it on everyone else. And now you’re beginning to taste its consequences.
I agree 100% with this analysis.
You can read the rest here.
The Jeb Stuart Preservation Trust, the organization that runs and maintains Jeb Stuart’s boyhood home, wrote an excellent letter to the Virginia governor regarding the despicable bill that bullies and bigots in the state legislature are attempting to pass.
Here is the most important passage from their letter:
HB1699… can be argued as viewpoint discrimination. In 1995 Virginia Supreme Court held viewpoint discrimination as an egregious free speech violation. In Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995), the Supreme Court declared: ‘When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.’
(emphasis mine)
The concept of viewpoint discrimination really captures what is so deeply and fundamentally wrong with this disgraceful bill and the thought process behind it. Thank you, Jeb Stuart Preservation Trust, for putting this idea into words and providing legal citations to support it.
You can read the letter in its entirety here.
View this post on Instagram
Complete hypocrisy. And also absolutely disgusting that a person would “love” for people who are different from them to be silenced. Another example of the bigotry and intolerance of the “woke,” politically correct ideology.
Any person who “loves” for people who are different from them to be silenced is a bigot and a bully, full stop.
I recently came across this tweet, which represents one of the stupidest takes I’ve seen on Elon Musk’s potential bid to buy Twitter:
(via Turning Point USA)
This tweet exemplifies the warped way in which people on the left-hand side of the political spectrum view the world.
For the past two years, the ideology that is often described as leftist, liberal, or progressive (but which is, in reality, brutal authoritarianism) has completely dominated all aspects of our society. People who dare express disagreement with any of this ideology’s tenets have been silenced, shunned, de-platformed, fired from their jobs, attacked, insulted, ridiculed, harassed, condemned, boycotted, or elsewise harshly punished, all for voicing dissenting views. Twitter is one of the most egregious examples of this trend, with supporters of authoritarian ideology free to spew their reprehensible bile without restraint, while those with the courage to fight back have had their tweets deleted and accounts suspended.
The prospect of Musk taking over Twitter brings with it the possibility of fairness and equal treatment, for a change.
But, bizarrely, political commentator Anand Giridharadas sees the potential Musk takeover as an example of someone being “allowed” to acquire “concentrated influence.” He sees it as Musk “manspreading.” He sees it as Musk appropriating a disproportionate amount of power for himself. *
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is those who share Giridharadas’s ideology who have been allowed to acquire concentrated influence. It is they who have held nearly limitless power this entire time.
Apparently, Giridharadas believes that he is entitled to a world in which the only people who are allowed to exist are those who think the way that he does. For now that there is a possibility of others actually being allowed to express their views, Giridharadas is aghast and indignant, acting as if he is somehow being disadvantaged and wronged. It is messed up and twisted that someone would imply that the possibility of fair and equal treatment for those with dissenting views somehow constitutes excessive power. It is reprehensible that someone would use words like “concentrated influence” and “manspreading” to characterize the possibility of others having the same freedoms that he does. Essentially, Giridharadas considers the solution to a wrong and unjust situation to be the problem, as opposed to the wrong and unjust situation itself.
In my opinion, Elon Musk demonstrates exactly why not to abolish billionaires. I am glad that Musk, a person who actually believes in freedom of speech and tolerance for diverse viewpoints, has enough money, power, and influence to make a positive difference in the world. I am glad that Elon Musk has the willingness and the ability to push back against bullies like Anand Giridharadas.
* Not to mention the fact that characterizing high taxes for rich people as “asking them to chip in their fair share” presumes that that high taxes for rich people are fair, which is not necessarily true. As well as the fact that the term “manspreading” is blatantly sexist
It shouldn’t even need to be stated that the actions of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Canadian government in response to the Freedom Convoy are morally wrong. Trudeau recently requested, and the Canadian Parliament granted him, emergency powers, which give him the ability, among other things, to freeze citizens’ bank accounts and seize their funds.
I am on the email list of the Campaign for Liberty, and they (correctly) wrote in a recent email: “This has shocking implications for free speech. In an instant, Canada went from a nation that honors free speech to a nation where the government can seize citizens’ property, savings, and livelihood for even donating to an effort whose viewpoints fall outside the accepted norm… We are talking about the government taking everything from working-class families – just for supporting free speech. The chilling effect it will have is obvious – and that’s the point.”
The Canadian government’s actions do indeed violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech. For people to be punished with financial destruction for the “crime” of political dissent is despicable. But that is not the worst thing about these actions. The situation becomes even more morally problematic when one considers the fact that the protesters being targeted by these brutal measures are not just any protesters. They are particularly honorable and brave protesters, and their cause is as worthy and morally right as any cause that can be imagined. For these protesters are demonstrating against government policies that force people to undergo medical procedures against their will.
It is entirely correct to condemn the seizing of people’s money for expressing viewpoints that fall outside the accepted norm. But the even bigger problem is the fact that the viewpoints in question fall outside the accepted norm in the first place. In a morally decent society, everyone would be in agreement that the government should not force people to undergo medical procedures. In a morally decent society, the viewpoints of the Freedom Convoy and its supporters would be within the accepted norm, not outside it. In a morally decent society, support for vaccine mandates would be outside the accepted norm, and those who advocate for medical procedures to be forced on their fellow citizens would be the ones facing the possibility of having their bank accounts frozen and assets seized.
The atrocities happening in Canada are immoral because of their chilling effect on free speech, but they are even more immoral because of the content of the speech that is being suppressed. The members of the Freedom Convoy are standing up for people’s rights to make their own medical decisions. Speech in support of this cause is exactly what the world desperately needs more of, and protests and demonstrations in support of this cause should be unanimously supported. Punishing people for expressing their views is unquestionably wrong, but punishing people for expressing these views is even more wrong. No viewpoint is less deserving of punishment, less deserving of suppression, and less deserving of being chilled, than opposition to vaccine mandates.
The fact that we live in a world where support for forced medical procedures is the accepted norm is beyond disturbing. The actions of Trudeau and the Canadian Parliament are horrific not only because they are an assault on freedom of speech in general, but also because they are an assault specifically on people who are standing up for bodily autonomy and medical freedom.
During his show earlier this week, Stephen Colbert (unsurprisingly) decided to make fun of former president Donald Trump for holding his first rally since the January 6th protest at the capitol building. “Why is he allowed to have rallies after that?” Colbert asked. “After the assassination, John Wilkes Booth wasn’t welcomed to Broadway for a sold-out performance of ‘I Shot Lincoln: The Musical.'”
Given that Colbert is a comedian, this was obviously an attempt to be funny, but I didn’t find it too humorous.
The answer to Colbert’s (rhetorical) question is that, believe it or not, there is this thing called the First Amendment. It protects the right to freedom of speech. There is no reason why Trump would lose his First Amendment rights because his supporters held a protest at the capitol building.
In other words, the reason why Trump is allowed to hold rallies is because being allowed to do things is the default. There is no compelling reason why Trump wouldn’t be allowed to have rallies after the protest; therefore he should be allowed to have them. Whenever someone demands that another person be banned from doing something, the person doing the demanding bears the burden of proof. It doesn’t even make sense for Colbert to have asked the question that he asked, because by doing so he is putting the burden of proof on Trump (as well as on anyone who thinks that Trump has the right to hold rallies) when it should be on him.
The real question that should be asked is, “Why should Trump be banned from holding rallies?” I doubt Colbert, or anyone, could come up with a satisfactory answer.
Dana White, the president of the UFC, is an example of how sports leagues ought to handle the issue of free speech on controversial topics.
In a press conference after a victory, fighter Colby Covington called the Black Lives Matter movement “a complete sham.” He continued, “It’s a joke. They’re taking these people that are complete terrorists. They’re taking these people that are criminals. These aren’t people that are hard-working Americans, blue-collar Americans. These are bad people. They’re criminals. They shouldn’t be attacking police. If you’re breaking the law and you’re threatening the cops with weapons, you deserve to get what you get. Law enforcement protects us all. If we don’t have law enforcement, it’d be the wild, wild West.” He also called a fellow fighter who supports BLM a communist, a Marxist, and someone who “hates America” and “stands for criminals.”
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Covington could perhaps have phrased things a bit more diplomatically, but I agree overall with his sentiments. Of course, given the political environment of 2020, fellow UFC fighters and sponsors promptly erupted in outrage, calling Covington and his comments “flat-out racist” and “disgusting.”
To his credit, White defended athletes’ freedom of speech. “These guys all have their own causes, things, their own beliefs,” he said. “We don’t muzzle anybody here. We let everybody speak their mind. I don’t know what he said that was racist. I don’t know if I heard anything racist that he said.”
More coaches, teams, and leagues should adopt similar attitudes. True diversity and inclusion require tolerance and acceptance of a wide range of political views. With athletes almost unanimously expressing support for the BLM movement, usually with the wholehearted endorsement of their teams and leagues, it is important to consider the rights of those with dissenting views. If athletes can speak out in favor of BLM, fairness requires that they also be free to speak out against BLM if that is how they feel.
In the latest example of intolerance practiced in the name of tolerance by today’s politically correct society, cyclist Quinn Simmons was suspended for tweeting his support of Donald Trump.
According to ESPN/Associated Press, the “controversial” tweets began when Dutch journalist Jose Been tweeted: “My dear American friends, I hope this horrible presidency ends for you. And for us as (former?) allies too. If you follow me and support Trump, you can go. There is zero excuse to follow or vote for the vile, horrible man.”
Simmons, the 2019 junior road race world champion, responded “Bye” with a dark-skinned hand emoji.
When someone else tweeted, “Apparently a Trumper,” Simmons responded, “That’s right” with an American flag emoji.
His team, Trek-Segafredo, said in a statement: “Trek-Segafredo is an organization that values inclusivity and supports a more diverse and equitable sport for all athletes. While we support the right to free speech, we will hold people accountable for their words and actions. Regrettably, team rider Quinn Simmons made statements online that we feel are divisive, incendiary, and detrimental to the team, professional cycling, its fans, and the positive future we hope to help create for the sport. He will not be racing for Trek-Segafredo until further notice.”
They added in a separate statement that Simmons “was not suspended because of his political views. He was suspended for engaging in conversation on Twitter in a way that we felt was conduct unbefitting a Trek athlete.”
And the team’s manager said that Simmons “has a bright future as a professional athlete if he can use this opportunity to grow as a person and make a positive contribution for a better future for cycling.”
According to Cycling Weekly, the organization Diversity in Cycling alleged that the use of the dark-skinned emoji was a form of “blackface” and pompously lectured him to “listen and learn.”
“To those who found the color of the emoji racist, I can promise that I did not mean for it to be interpreted that way,” Simmons responded. “I would like to apologize to everyone who found this offensive as I strongly stand against racism in any form. To anyone who disagrees with me politically, that is fine. I won’t hate you for it. I only ask the same.”
In my opinion, this is a perfect example of much ado about nothing. Simmons expressed his support for Trump, something that he has every right to do. When one considers the wide range of opinions, thoughts, insults, and profanities that exist in the vast world of social media, Simmons’s tweets are really pretty innocuous. He did not attack or insult anyone, use profanity, or call anyone names. Interpreting the dark-skinned emoji as racist is a stretch and is certainly not an interpretation that would occur to me upon seeing this tweet. There wasn’t any need for Simmons to apologize, as he didn’t do anything wrong. By suspending him, his team went way overboard and veered into the realm of hypocrisy. Any organization that truly values inclusivity and diversity would embrace people with varied political beliefs. There was nothing incendiary or divisive about Simmons’s tweets, unless by divisive the team meant demonstrating ideological diversity, in which case being divisive is not a bad thing. There is no need for Simmons to “grow as a person” or “listen and learn,” as he has already demonstrated good character and courage by daring to voice unpopular views. It is the practitioners of political correctness run amok who need to listen and learn about what diversity truly means.
In yet another example of the intolerance of the Black Lives Matter movement, Senator Rand Paul was attacked by an angry mob of over 100 people while leaving the White House after the Republican National Convention. As he and his wife were trying to make their way back to their hotel, the mob swarmed around them, screamed insults, profanities, and death threats, and physically prevented them from moving.
The Daily Caller tweeted a video of the incident.
Senator Paul also described his ordeal on Fox & Friends:
They’re attempting to push the police over to get to me, so at one point they push a policeman backwards, he stumbles and he’s trying to catch his balance and I catch the back of his flak jacket to stabilize him to make sure he’s OK because he’s our defense. If he’s down, the mob’s loose on us. I truly believe this with every fiber of my being, had they gotten at us they would have gotten us to the ground, we might not have been killed, might just have been injured by being kicked in the head, or kicked in the stomach until we were senseless… They were shouting threats to us, to kill us, to hurt us, but also threats shouting “say her name,” Breonna Taylor, and it’s like you couldn’t reason with this mob, but I’m actually the author of the Breonna Taylor law to end no-knock raids, so the irony is lost on these idiots that they’re trying to kill the person who’s actually trying to get rid of no-knock raids.
That’s right, a mob of Black Lives Matter supporters threatened and harassed the very person who has authored 22 criminal justice reforms, including abolishing no-knock raids, which led to Breonna Taylor’s death. Apparently completely ignorant of this, the mob told the libertarian-leaning Republican senator, “We’re not going to let you go alive unless you’ll say you’re for criminal justice reform.” Paul’s actions over the years demonstrate quite clearly that he is. As Paul wrote in an opinion piece for Fox News, “almost no one has said Breonna Taylor’s name as often or sincerely as I have.”