Monday, August 6, 2018

More Insight Into The Sickness That Is Liberalism

I've always told you that liberalism/socialism is basically premised on spite. It thrives on the idea that others having less is as good as or better than me having more. Well, here's an interesting bit of proof of that.

This proof comes from an actress named Ruth Wilson. Wilson plays a character on the Showtime show "The Affair." She recently complained about unequal pay for the women on her show and now her character has been killed off, leading some to speculate there is a connection. That isn't what interests us though. What interests us is her original complaint.

In February, Wilson complained about the men on the show making more money than the women. She also complained about her opposite, Dominic West, making more than she does. She then said three very telling things. First, she admitted that she doesn't even know if West makes more than her. She said:
“I definitely get less money than a male in my situation would. Definitely.”
But then said this about how much more:
“So he definitely gets more than me. I mean, I don’t know what the figure is, but I’m sure he does.”
In other words, she has no clue. She doesn't know if he makes more or not, she just assumes he does because he's a man and in her world, she would be paid more if she were a man. So her entire world view is premised on an assumption about which she knows nothing. Very typical on the left.

Oh, and could there be a reason he gets paid more (assuming he does)? Well, yes.
“Yeah. I think so. Certainly when I signed up to that project, I would have got paid less. Then they the producers might argue, ‘Well, he’s already done a major American TV show [The Wire] so he’s already got a level.’”
But hey, they've both been on the same show now for a couple years, so none of that counts, right? Never mind that he's still got a better resume, more experience, and might have more appeal... meaning it will cost more to keep him. That thought never occurs to her. To her, they've both been doing the job, so they should get paid the same, right? I wonder if she'll feel the same when some newbie joins some future show she's been on or if she'll want what she "deserves" then? I'm guessing the same rules won't apply then.

Anyways, she wasn't done spouting off her ignorance. See, when asked why she doesn't know how much Dominic makes, she said it was hard to ask him and she blamed him for not telling her. In fact, this woman, who no doubt describes herself as "strong" said:
“It’s sort of funny. It’s quite hard to bring that up in a way. But it needs to be an open discussion and men need to help us out.”
In other words, she wants men to give her everything she's entitled too without her having to do the work of even asking questions... because that's hard. Worthless.

And then we come to the really insidious part. Up to now, she's just been a typical stupid liberal who doesn't have a clue what she's talking about, but is strident in her victimization and wants her victimizer to make it all better for her without her having to do any work to make it happen. "Somebody do something!!!" Well, now we get to what it is she actually wants. Check this out:
“I don’t want more money, I just want equal money. Which means men have to take less.”
There it is: spite. I don't really want more, I just want others to have less. This is the most illogical, pathetic, hateful crap that comes from the bottom of the human soul, and yet it seems to be the basis of socialism. You see this all the time, where it doesn't matter if it helps the whiner or not, they just want to see others brought down. You own too much, we need to take it! You are too successful, we need to stop you! You are too good in school or sports, we need to eliminate that! How does that help me? It does, but it makes me feel better. That's pure spite.

They've run tests on monkeys and found that some monkeys actually prefer to deny other monkeys treats than get their own treats, when given the option. In other words, spite is an instinct in some. We're supposed to be smarter than that as a species, but liberals aren't. They would rather that you fail than that they succeed. This dumb ape, Ruth Wilson, wants men to a make less because she thinks that would be fair. What a hateful, ignorant sh*t.


Critch said...

I've had to read her comments three times to make sure I was reading it right...what a dim bulb, even for an actor.

AndrewPrice said...

Critch, The sad thing is that she's typical of liberals. It doesn't matter if something is true or not, it only matters if they want to believe it's true. And then they expect someone else to solve the problem because they don't actually want to work or even be inconvenienced. And finally, the solutions they want have nothing to do with fixing the problem they want fixed.

AndrewPrice said...

Wow. Yahoo is trying to sell us Medicare for all on the basis that it "could save business trillions." Such dipsh*ttery.

1. Changing who pays is not saving money. It may save business money, but it will cost all the rest of us the same amount they save. That is not a positive!

2. The left HATES business. The populist right hates big business. Average Americans don't care about big business. So why in the world should anyone care about saving business money -- especially when you end up crippling the middle class and "working poor" to pay for it?

3. I'd rather have a business need to provide decent health care as a benefit to lure employees than have an indifferent government agency provide whatever budget they have.

Tennessee Jed said...

although I won"t say that all liberals are dim bulbs, it certainly reflects the lack of common sense that seems so prevalent among celebrities and others who seem to have a forum to spout off. I think in today's world, people, including actors get paid on their perceived ability to get people to pay to see them. It does seem to be common among the black lives matter activists. e.g. you have privilege and must give up something. I always thought of it as losing sight of the fact equal opportunity under the law is different than guarantees of equal outcomes.

if we look at capitalism vs. socialism, we can agree that unfettered capitalism ends up like a monopoly game while socialism robs people of liberty and incentive. It is why I I do recognize anti-trust as a valid function.

I am kind of wandering here .... sorry, but yeah this "you owe me free shit" is ridiculous. We have thrown tons of money trying to level the playing field in education but it doesn"t work. People have to take some responsibility themselves

tryanmax said...

Andrew, the left is really working hard to get around the price tag of universal health care, now that it has one. Honestly, the best argument I've seen (though woefully naive) is that it won't cost $32 trillion, it will save $2 trillion. Unfortunately, that's a rounding error when you're working with numbers that big. In real terms, we're talking about replacing the current system with one that costs an equal amount in order to "save money." And if you think that's possible, I have some smart pills to sell you.

Critch said...

From my perspective, monopolies are the result of the market "not" being able to operate openly and freely. Corporations have for years used legislation to make themselves the only provider etc of goods and services. The best example is the railroads..they would not have been a monopoly if Congress had stayed out of it. Right now the tech giants are very protected by congress and state legislatures.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I’d welcome your thoughts on the Ohio special election. I personally don’t read much into an election that will essentially be repeated in 3 months. But a lot of folk seem worried/confident—depending on which side they root for—that the low GOP turnout spells doom for Republicans in November.

Post a Comment