I’ve pointed this out dozens of times before, but the problem with structuring an ideology like the left has with their current ideology is that it lacks any sort of intellectual underpinnings. Instead, it substitutes the grievances of its recognized members. Consequently, there is no consistency because those grievances can change just as soon as the idiots who invented the grievance change their minds. In effect, it’s like basing a political ideology on the whinings of a six year old. Today, you are demanding that sandwiches be cut into squares. Tomorrow, it better be triangles. The day after, sandwiches themselves are the root of all evil. The day after that, sandwiches have returned to vogue, but that dog who stole your donut must be purged. And so on.
The issue surrounding MLK’s speech is just the latest example of this, but it is an excellent example. MLK’s key words were this:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”What does MLK mean? He means that he hopes that one day, America will move beyond race and it will be entirely irrelevant as a basis for judging another human being. What can possibly be more inclusive than that? King is hoping that everyone can live in a future where everyone stops judging people on the basis of race. No one is excluded from this dream. It is not limited in its application. It is not limited in its scope. It is not limited in its ambition. Who could possibly go all whiny bitch about this not being inclusive?
Feminists.
Indeed, said Sophomore Mia Ashley, who is clearly a dipshit, “diversity is so much more than race. Obviously race still plays a big role, but there are people who identify differently in gender and all sorts of things like that.”
Think about that. Assley is saying that the fact that MLK spoke only about race makes his dream non-inclusive. In other words, he didn’t make reference to my personal grievance, so his thought is not worthy of being considered inclusive. Idiotic.
Interestingly, this makes it impossible for anyone to ever state a truly inclusive thought about diversity because it is impossible to list all of the possible weirdoes looking for validation at one time. Indeed, MLK could have said:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, their gender, their gender identity, how big their schlongs or anti-schlongs are, their religion or anti-religion, their ethnicity, their weight, their age, their economic circumstances, their disability, their lack of height, the color of their eyes, their desire to be animals, their intelligence, their mental health, or their emotional stability, but by the content of their character.”And yet, the first person who wants to see themselves as a vampire or who can’t grow enough hair makes this non-inclusive. "He didn't include me! Waaaaaaah!"
Think about that. This dumb beatch is claiming that the greatest statement of inclusion after “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal” is not inclusive because MLK didn’t bother to mention her particular defect. That is the worthlessness of leftism in a nutshell. That is why the left has nothing to offer and why anything the left tries devolves into hate and acrimony.
Honestly, it’s too late to save the left, but don’t let these people infect the right too.
18 comments:
We'll see how things go in Iowa today. That will help us to see whether the right is seriously infected or not. A good deal of Trump's appeal is that he legitimizes the grievances that the left says don't count.
As an aside, I find it fascinating that so many people still don't seem to get the National Review "Against Trump" issue. I've seen and heard a lot of criticisms against the publication that are completely beside the point of whether or not Trump is conservative. Even if NR is a dying, publicity-stunt pulling paper that is disloyal to the GOP while being blind to its part in The Establishment, how would any of that change the Donald's toupee?
Tryanmax - I agree that Trump legitimized grievances that the left says don't count. And I give him a lot of credit for being the ONLY politician ever to directly confront the Clintons. That is all I have to say about Trump...
Andrew - See, not teaching history is having an effect. I saw this kind of thing a few years ago while a member of book club. All professional/highly degreed women mostly under 35 who had absolutely no concept of the real women's movement. They had never really had to deal with real issues, only imagined ones. It was frightening how unsympathetic they were to women who had few choices.
They are looking for a magic bullet law that will make everyone "equal", but they don't even understand what that means because they don't realize that they are already there. They cannot see that the goal is/was/has always been "Equality of Opportunity" and not "Equality of Outcome".
tryanmax, That is a form of evasion that now passes as a form of logic among the slower elements of the public: if you can find an attack on the person making a point you don't like, then you can treat the point as disproven. It's idiotic, but it passes for logic among that set of people (people you might describe as "haters").
In terms of legitimizing grievances, Trump definitely does it, but he's only the latest. The first person I really noticed doing this was Sarah Palin. She's HUGE into defining herself as the victim for any number of reasons. In fact, she basically sold herself as poor, white trash -- which she termed "real American" -- and she tried to argue that anyone who accused her of being uneducated, stupid, lazy, etc. was being "ist" and that anyone who wasn't poor, white trash was un-real. She even reveled in refusing to learn on the basis that leaning about things she didn't know would somehow chip away her real-ness. (Also, do you remember her war on the word "retard"? And her attacks on those who criticized her daughter for having an out-of-wedlock baby?)
Anyways, she's not the first, but she's the most prominent up to now to try to turn her flaws into nobility and demand that no one be able to use her flaws against her.
Bev, The lack of history is definitely part of it. A lot of these people have no perspective whatsoever against which to judge their own lives. Unfortunately, that opens the door to the whole culture created by people like Oprah, which take things that upset you and turn them into an outrage which then evolves into a right not to have those things happen. Bingo... instant victim.
The by-product of participation trophies + legitimizing that which was once considered abnormal. Once again, thanks a whole lot, hippies! That said, the more we keep mocking people like this – and I think mockery is the right’s #1 weapon against the left’s predictably repetitive insanity – the better off society will be. The day Parker and Stone pull the plug on South Park will either be a glorious time for celebrating our victory over the madness, or a sad, sad resignation we lost.
“First I’m taking you to the loony bin, then I’m going to the brewery, eh?”
Eric, Strange Brew? :)
Agreed. Our number one weapon needs to be mockery. If you get into a serious debate with people whose issues are a joke, you legitimize positions that should be dismissed out of hand.
Andrew, and that is why it didn't surprise me in the least when Palin came out in support of Trump.
BTW, I don't like the terms "haters" but there is no other word that fits so well. There are people out there who simply hate. They hate without reason or justification and no matter what the evidence. You see this with the people who WANT Peyton Manning to have taken HGH because they want him tarnished, people who hate Cam Newton and accuse him of all kind of nebulous crimes they can't even identify, people who hate Disney because it represents something they don't want to exist, people who hate religion because they can't share it, etc. I see it at Amazon, where there are people who just go slam things because they are popular. I still remember a group of leftists who hated Mother Theresa of all people.
These people simply hate things that have grown a following in our culture and they spew tons of venom at those things. I don't know why they feel this need, but they have it. It's most likely an attempt to deflect their own unhappiness, but I'm not sure why this makes them feel less inferior.
Unfortunately, the term "haters" is also used by idiots like Kanye West, who hides behind it to dismiss criticism of all of his asshole actions. So it gets misused and has come to be an evasion used by jerks to pretend that the only reason people criticize them is they are being irrational. Sadly though, it would otherwise be a useful word.
tryanmax, Me neither. I never even considered the idea that she might endorse someone else. They are fellow travelers.
EP - you are right. This has everything to do with our "participation trophy" society. They are told they are perfect and can do anything they want to do and if anyone says otherwise they are jealous and hateful and wrogn. This is apparently so as not to harm their precious self-esteem and turn them into serial killers (or something).
So when confronted with the reality that someone may not allow them to do what they want because they are not prepared, not qualified, don't measure up, not [fill in the blank], it can't possibly be lack of talent, experience whatever legitimate reason. It must be because they hate [fill in the blank]. In other words, they are not being to taught to fail, figure out why, improve, and try again.
Imagine if Edison or the Wright Brothers had never learned to fail...
Bev, I see and hear this constantly in the microcosm known as little league/high school baseball world, and it simultaneously frightens and disgusts me how the parents perpetuate the faux self-esteem process. Yes, yes, mumsy, I realize your kid may be the next Derek Jeter or Randy Johnson, but guess what? He may also be just plain ol' little league Billy, a kid who just wants to have fun with his friends (not that the two outcomes are mutually exclusive).
Harold "Washington" Reynolds also touched on something related to this on MLB Network's Hot Stove show this morning in that kids are so micromanaged in their games, at a younger and younger age -- which outside the baseball context gets extrapolated to scheduled "play dates" -- that they have no idea how to function unless they're being told specifically what and when to do something. Hello, goodbye, and off to Indoctrination U for your Bernie Sanders-style Victimology 101 courses.
Bev, Failure is how you learn, not success. Anyone who played sports knew that. Winning feels great, but you when you win you overlook what you did right and what you did wrong. When you lose, you work hard to figure out why you didn't win.
The idea of protecting kids from life is something that losers are doing their kids. It's a form of natural selection in the social world and it will help those gene lines drift to the bottom of society little by little.
Eric, Ultimately, it hurts no one but the kids because life is ultimately competitive and they just won't be able to compete.
(As an aside, the chro-mag theory of torture your kids and force them to rise through your anger doesn't work either. It perverts the competitive instincts. Essentially, the crazed sports/pageant parents and the my-kid-is-delicate parents are two sides of the same coin, with both turning out losers. Oh well.
BTW, Showing that the Palins are the complete package... Honey Boo Boo Palin's son is blaming his domestic abuse charges on the very trendy PTSD. And Palin is apparently blaming Obama for his PTSD.
I would be surprised if he wasn't ADHD as well and if someone in the family doesn't have fibromyalga and the accompanying pain killer addiction. Those things are all very trendy in those circles.
When did politics and our Constitutional government become a reality show filled with reality show candidates?
It's too easy to say 2008, but sometimes the easiest answer's still the correct one. Maybe 1992, though, when MTV finally found a not-so-old candidate who would (all too gladly) respond to a query about his underwear preference. Still surprised he didn't go all Bill Murray in Stripes with a "mesh" reply.
As much as we'd need ear bleach upon hearing the reply, in the name of fairness and equality, still can't believe some smart-ass reporter hasn't asked Hillary, "Thong or boy shorts?" Yes, we know it's grannypanties.
Bev, I see and hear this constantly in the microcosm known as little league/high school baseball world, and it simultaneously frightens and disgusts me how the parents perpetuate the faux self-esteem process. Yes, yes, mumsy, I realize your kid may be the next Derek Jeter or Randy Johnson, but guess what? He may also be just plain ol' little league Billy, a kid who just wants to have fun with his friends (not that the two outcomes are mutually exclusive).
Harold "Washington" Reynolds also touched on something related to this on MLB Network's Hot Stove show this morning in that kids are so micromanaged in their games, at a younger and younger age -- which outside the baseball context gets extrapolated to scheduled "play dates" -- that they have no idea how to function unless they're being told specifically what and when to do something. Hello, goodbye, and off to Indoctrination U for your Bernie Sanders-style Victimology 101 courses.
Post a Comment