Tag: hypocrisy

bookmark_borderBullying people for being “incels” is the same as attacking the Confederates for being “losers”

Posted on by Marissa

I was browsing on Substack the other day, and while reading an article about a random topic (link here), I came across the below comment:

Anyone who unironically uses the word “incel” as a pejorative is demonstrating severe sociopathic tendencies, in my opinion. Imagine how sadistic and devoid of compassion you have to be in order to bully people who are unattractive and unpopular SIMPLY FOR BEING UNATTRACTIVE AND UNPOPULAR. If that’s not an example of kicking someone while they’re down, I don’t know what is. These people are acting as if unattractiveness and lack of popularity is a mortal character flaw in and of itself–as if it makes their target morally irredeemable and sub-human–as an ad-hoc method of justifying actual bullying and evil behavior toward those who most likely don’t deserve it. And the people who throw the “incel” label around casually are typically the ones who claim to be the most compassionate. What a joke. I know someone’s going to read my comment and respond with “You sound really upset about this. You sound like an incel! This is exactly what an incel would say!”

I agree 100% with this comment and feel that a very similar point could be made about the Confederacy.

People attack and insult the Confederacy, and argue that it shouldn’t be honored with statues and monuments, because it lost the war. As if losing a war somehow demonstrates poor character. As if a lack of population, resources, and supplies is somehow a character flaw.

Losing a war has nothing to do with character. Winning and losing are determined by things such as population size, resources, and supplies. These are things that have nothing to do with character. Which side wins, and which side loses, has nothing to do with which side was right and which side was wrong.

People who attack and insult the Confederates for being “losers” are attacking and insulting the Confederacy for having a smaller population, fewer supplies, less advanced technology, and a less industrialized economy.

When you call the Confederates “losers,” you are acting as if a lack of population, resources, and supplies is a character flaw. Just as, by using the word “incel” as a pejorative, you are acting as if unattractiveness and lack of popularity are character flaws. But these aren’t character flaws. And there is no logical reason whatsoever to believe that they are.

People who call Confederate soldiers “losers” as a pejorative are demonstrating the exact same attitude as those who use the word “incel” as a pejorative. Just as the latter group of people are choosing to bully those who are unattractive and unpopular simply for being unattractive and unpopular, the former group of people are choosing to bully a nation that had a small population, fewer supplies, less advanced technology, and a less industrialized economy… simply for having a small population, fewer supplies, less advanced technology, and a less industrialized economy.

As the above commenter correctly points out, this way of thinking is sadistic, completely devoid of compassion, and is the very essence of kicking someone when they’re down. It’s also completely irrational and has no basis in logic or reason.

And, as the commenter also correctly points out, the people who do this are generally the people who claim to be the most compassionate. When in reality, their decision to equate a lack of attractiveness, popularity, resources, and supplies with poor character demonstrates not only their complete and utter lack of logic, but also their complete and utter lack of compassion for the people who need it the most.

bookmark_borderExcellent article re: progressives’ hypocrisy on free speech

Posted on by Marissa

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.

bookmark_border“Hate has no home here”

Posted on by Marissa
 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Glory Glory (@oldgloryglory)

Bingo!

I would also add, hate for people who have trouble making friends, people who are bullied, people who don’t fit in, people who think for themselves, people who hold minority views, people who resist authority, people who decline medical interventions, and people who are different from the norm in any way.

bookmark_border“No kings in America…”

Posted on by Marissa

No kings in America…

But yes to mandatory medical procedures.

Yes to society collectively making decisions about which risks people should be allowed to take, rather than people making decisions about risk for themselves.

No kings in America…

But yes to viciously tearing down statues of those who fought for the losing side of a war.

Yes to obliterating all representation of people who are different from the norm, in our public spaces, in our society, in art and culture.

No kings in America…

But yes to the criminalization of political dissent.

Yes to demanding unquestioning, unthinking submission.

Yes to mindless compliance with social norms.

Yes to morally condemning the entire concept of rebellion, of revolution, of resistance to authority.

Yes to using the terms “insurrectionist” and “traitor” as pejoratives, as if the concept of resisting authority is so self-evidently shameful and bad that it ought to be used as an insult.

No kings in America…

But yes to tyranny, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism.

That is the message of the “No Kings Day” protests.

bookmark_borderChronic venous insufficiency is not funny

Posted on by Marissa

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_borderUSNS Harvey Milk renamed after Oscar Peterson

Posted on by Marissa

The U.S. Navy ship that was named after gay rights activist Harvey Milk was recently renamed in honor of World War II hero and Medal of Honor recipient Oscar V. Peterson. The Navy oil tanker was originally named the USNS Harvey Milk in 2016 under the Obama administration, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth decided to rename it in order to “take the politics out of ship naming,” according to Fox News. The new namesake, Peterson, sustained fatal burn injuries while attempting to keep his ship afloat after it sustained severe damage during a battle with Japanese forces in the Philippines.

I agree with Hegseth. On the one hand, I feel bad whenever a historical figure has their name removed from something. Destroying the monuments, celebrations, and memorials of historical figures is exactly what I have dedicated the past five years of my life to criticizing and fighting against. But with this renaming, the intolerant bullies who have carried out this historical figure genocide are finally getting a taste of their own medicine. Harvey Milk is a historical figure that the intolerant bullies of political correctness tend to admire, so perhaps by seeing his name erased, they are experiencing a tiny, miniscule fraction of the pain that they have inflicted on others.

One such bully, Nancy Pelosi, called the renaming “a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream.” This comment demonstrates a complete and utter lack of empathy. Pelosi and those who think like her have spent the past five years actively carrying out a vindictive erasure of historical figures who actually signify diversity and inclusion. This is what is truly shameful. Perhaps Milk is a historical figure who makes gay people feel included and represented, but having a ship named after him doesn’t do anything to help me. As someone who has always had difficulty fitting in and making friends, who has always been different from the majority, and who has always thought for myself rather than following social norms, Milk didn’t do anything to break down barriers for people like me. Rather, it is historical figures such as Christopher Columbus, Robert E. Lee, and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson who make me feel included and represented. And those are exactly the historical figures who have been subjected to a deliberate, vicious, cruel, and brutal campaign of obliteration by Pelosi and her ideological allies. It’s despicable for Pelosi to complain about a “vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers” when that is exactly what she and her allies have been doing.

While I do feel a little bit bad for Harvey Milk, having his name removed from a ship pales in comparison to the sickening acts that have been perpetrated against Christopher Columbus and those who fought for the Confederacy. It is those acts which are truly shameful. And it’s past time that the perpetrators get a taste of their own medicine.

bookmark_borderBarron Trump an “oddity on campus” – another example of the intolerance of the left

Posted on by Marissa

The third slide of this Instagram post really caught my attention. In it, Barron Trump is called an “oddity on campus” by fellow NYU students because “he goes to class, he goes home.”

Why the heck is it considered “odd” to go to class and then go home? Isn’t that exactly what a student is supposed to do? What is it, exactly, that Barron is expected to do in addition to attending his classes? What is required in order to qualify as “normal” in these people’s eyes?

This is a perfect example of the bigotry and intolerance of the progressive left. They proudly proclaim their support for queer people, trans people, single mothers, poor people, racial minorities, religious minorities… but find it “odd” that a student goes to class and then goes home. They criticize a young man for literally doing exactly what makes perfect sense for a person to do in his situation.

So in case this needs to be stated, which it shouldn’t, there is nothing odd about going to class and then home. It is exactly what makes sense for a student to do. I’m tired of this meanness, intolerance, and hypocrisy.